Legal Education Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Legal Education Review |
|
Lecturing (and not Lecturing) Using the Web:
Developing a Teaching Strategy for Web-based Lectures
(Flexible Delivery in a First Year Law Subject, Part I)
LAWRENCE MCNAMARA*
INTRODUCTION
It is less than a decade since Le Brun and Johnstone sought so effectively to
improve law students’ learning by bridging “the
perceived gulf
between educational theory and practice so that our work as [law] teachers is
more informed, reflective, critical
and, thus, improved in
practice”.1 In documenting and building upon
theoretical and practical connections, they both identified and accelerated the
“quiet revolution”
which has been making our classrooms, at their
best, places where active, student-centred learning involves critical dialogue
on
law and justice. In the meantime, however, there has been another revolution
fermenting in the academy. But this time it may undermine
the developments in
law teaching because in many instances the classroom will no longer be the
principal site of teaching. The new
revolution is one of “flexible
delivery”.
For many law teachers the move to flexible delivery is not a
voluntary one. The continuing shift has been (and is still being) driven
by two
primary objectives, which apply at both institutional and departmental levels.
First, there is constant pressure to reduce
the cost of running programs and
subjects – in short, there is a widespread need to do more with
less.2 Secondly, the joint factors of budget and
marketing necessities have required universities and departments to capture a
greater share
of the education “market”.3
Where minimal or no attendance on campus is required, a program may attract
students who would not otherwise study at all, or may
draw students who would
otherwise attend another institution. The concomitant globalisation of higher
education is also associated
with this trend as previously localised programs
are increasingly able to compete in an international
market.4 With speedy access to large quantities of
information at low cost and interactive communication, the Internet is fast
becoming the
principal vehicle for flexible delivery in higher
education.5
Anecdotal evidence from the University
of Western Sydney Macarthur and other universities would suggest that many law
staff are facing
the requirement that they make use of the Internet (and
especially the World Wide Web) either to replace other modes of subject delivery
or to complement them. The problems that arise centre not merely around
technology issues – that is, what if one does not know
how to put a
subject on-line – but also around educational objectives; how does the web
differ as a medium for subject delivery,
and how should teachers deal with such
difference? The potential of the Internet as an educational tool should not be
underestimated
nor lightly dismissed; it offers genuine opportunities for
educational advancement in terms of new teaching and learning
potentials.6 Unfortunately, these possible benefits
seem frequently to exist more as a reaction to the institutional and management
demands than
as a developmental philosophy underpinning flexible delivery;
educational benefits seem at times to arise more in spite of the push
to
flexible delivery rather than as a perceived reason for moving in that
direction. While there is no question that for many academics
the move to
technology is educationally driven, the identification by Hart of “two
camps of interest, one interested in the
pedagogy of the technology and the
other interested in the pragmatics” seems to be
accurate.7
As a result of these changes, existing
strategies for teaching and learning will need re-thinking if the educational
dialogue is to
be effectively (re)constituted in the unfamiliar and impersonal
contexts which are dictated by institutional imperatives to deliver
legal
education in a flexible manner. By explaining the development of a teaching
strategy for mixed-mode flexible delivery in a
first year law subject, this
article seeks to explore critically the possibility of achieving educational
objectives when lectures
are delivered over the web. The aim is to explore the
educational literature and apply it to the demands of flexible delivery so
that
even in the absence of great technical expertise or an abundance of resources,
web-based delivery might still be educationally
valuable and administratively
manageable. My intention is not to prescribe a method of using the web, but to
suggest that a departure
from the classroom need not be a bad thing; the
critical and reflexive approach to law teaching which dominates the best of
contemporary
practices in the classroom should similarly inspire our excursions
into cyberspace.
The article begins by outlining the project background and
rationale. Section Two looks at the context of a shift to web-based lecturing;
it discusses approaches to learning, learning objectives and ways in which
traditional lecturing seeks to achieve them. The third
section turns to the
development of a web-based lecturing approach for Introduction to Law,
identifying with examples and reasons the strategies adopted for the
web-lectures. A brief conclusion draws together the rationales
for flexible
delivery and the objectives of teaching, suggesting that teaching using the
Internet requires, like any mode of teaching,
a critical, creative and
reflective approach if learning objectives are to be effectively met. On the
web, this entails a fundamental
reconsideration of the very idea of
lecturing.
An evaluation and review of the mixed-mode project is the subject
of the “Part Two” article which follows in this issue
of the
journal.8 Together, the two articles examine some of
the ways in which the challenges of flexible delivery might not only be made
manageable
but may even become a catalyst for constructive change. It will be
argued that while there are numerous reasons to exercise caution,
there are good
reasons to consider creative but simple web-based delivery as a positive
alternative to large group lecturing, carrying
significant potential for deep,
holistic, student-centred learning.
THE STARTING OUT PROJECT
Introduction to Law is the foundation subject in the Bachelor of Laws
degree at the University of Western Sydney Macarthur. In autumn semester 1999,
the
project Starting Out: An Introduction to Law and An Introduction to
Flexible Delivery set about replacing the weekly face-to-face one hour
lecture with a weekly web-based lecture which could be accessed by students
at
the time and place of their choice.9 The rationale of
the project was threefold, addressing first the administrative pressures of
timetabling and lecture/tutorial structure
for the first year cohort, secondly
fitting in with the university objectives for increasing flexibility in program
and course delivery,
and thirdly raising the possibility of significant
developmental benefits, including an introduction to flexible learning in a
foundation
subject at the beginning of students’ university education.
Familiarity with and acceptance of web-based teaching could only
assist in
establishing a culture of learning in which the face-to-face lecture is no
longer seen as essential, yet learning is not
reduced to a seminar alone. A
weekly two-hour seminar class still represented a substantial face-to-face
component.
A consultant with experience in web design for flexible delivery
in university subjects was engaged to design and build the web page
in
consultation with the subject coordinator. The web page was intended to be
simple to use and to contain few graphics or features
which would slow the
download process.10 The Introduction to Law web
page would provide access to all substantive and administrative aspects of the
course which might normally be dealt with in lectures.
The web-lectures were
posted on the Monday evening of each week. The material covered in each lecture
would be the subject of the
readings and tutorial for the following week so that
all students had access to the lectures at least six days prior to their
tutorial
classes. To facilitate student interaction and input, there would also
be a “feedback” email link to the subject coordinator
for questions
and comments, hypertext links to relevant sites, including relevant news and
current affairs, and a discussion page
for student chat. Thus, the
“electronic lecture” would not be a set of explanatory lecture notes
, but rather an active
engagement between the teacher and students designed to
enhance not merely the flexibility, but also the quality, of learning.
The
aim was not to remove the learning aspect of the lecture and leave only the
seminar; rather, the aim was to re-define the learning
process of the course as
a whole. However, the content of the lecture and its relationship with the
seminar classes developed and
changed over the course of the semester. The most
significant development was the gradual conceptual shift that emerged not so
much
out of thinking through the teaching strategy in advance, but out of
doing it and reflecting upon it. It will be explained that what
began as a substitute or replacement for the face-to-face lecture became a
web-lecture based
around questions asked of students, rather than explanation
provided to them. But this came to occupy a different conceptual place
to that
of the traditional lecture. The title of this article is its point: the lecture
was in the end not a lecture at all, but
instead became – much more so in
hindsight than at the outset – a qualitatively different resource for
student learning.
The following explanation of how the teaching strategy was
developed is inevitably coloured by such hindsight and thus more complex
than it
was prior to the project, but it is hopefully richer for the reflection which
informs it.
DEVELOPING A TEACHING STRATEGY
Approaches to Learning
The literature on teaching and learning in higher education has over the last ten to 15 years focused on forms of deep and holistic student-centred learning in higher education.11 The idea of “deep learning” underpins almost all the educational literature: it is the approach to learning that teachers in higher education would generally like their students to adopt and engage in.12 The opposite approach is a surface approach to learning. Entwistle identifies the deep approach as
active involvement stemming from interest in the content which leads to an
elaboration of the learning material in seeking personal
understanding. In
contrast, the surface approach suggests anxiety or extrinsic motivation driving
routine memorisation intended to
reproduce aspects of the subject
matter.13
Learning outcomes associated with the deep
and surface approaches are described by Ramsden:
Deep approaches generate high quality, well-structured, complex outcomes;
they produce a sense of enjoyment in learning and commitment
to the subject.
Surface approaches lead at best to the ability to retain unrelated details,
often for a short period. As they are
artificial, so are their outcomes
ephemeral.14
The distinction between deep and
surface learning has been described by Goldring as it applies to the discipline
of law:
Students taking a surface approach tend to learn by rote, not to question the
assumptions that underpin the material nor to relate
it to its context. Students
with a deep approach examine the arguments critically, question the assumptions
on which they are based
and relate them to previous knowledge and understanding.
... Understanding of legal material, both from a perspective of internal
consistency and structure, and of its relations to the social context, is
essential to the making of sound professional judgments
and
evaluations.15
As suggested at the start of this
article, Le Brun & Johnstone’s book of 1994, The Quiet
(R)evolution, was a theoretical, practical and exemplary excursion through
the themes of the education literature at the time, applying it specifically
to
teaching in Australian law schools. Like Ramsden, however, their focus was on
rethinking, revising and improving traditional teaching
methods. Both works
centred around rethinking the approach to traditional lecture and small group
teaching rather than exploring
the possibilities for effective and improved
teaching which might lie within new media.
The literature on web-based
instruction in law, while not extensive, has gained some
currency.16 Goldring canvassed the issues surrounding
the “virtual campus” of the law school in an exploration of teaching
law by
distance education and, while not arguing for a removal of face-to-face
teaching, took seriously and positively the potential of
new technologies for a
quality legal education.17 The preference and pressure
within most law schools appears to be not, however, for total off-campus
delivery but for a mixed mode
of flexible and face-to-face
delivery.18 Laurillard &
Margetson19 look at mixed mode issues as they relate to
institutional administrative and resource needs generally (more so than at the
delivery
of individual subjects) , while Johnstone &
Joughin20 explore print-based flexible teaching in law
which usually relies upon the production of hard-copy materials at the
commencement
of a subject rather than ongoing electronic delivery throughout a
teaching period.
The Law Faculty at UWS Macarthur was founded in 1994 and
took its first intake of students in 1995. The Faculty objectives reflect
current themes in educational literature and are expressly stated in terms of
deep, student-centred learning:
It is in this context that Introduction to Law is located as the foundation LLB subject. The challenge throughout is the pursuit and maintenance25 of deep learning through a medium (computing) that is not traditionally seen as facilitating such outcomes.26
The Possibility of Deep Learning Using Web-lectures
Laurillard has examined the use of technology in
teaching in higher education generally, though there is little discussion of the
World Wide Web.27 Nevertheless, she reviews teaching in
the context of effective use of technology. Teaching, she explains, is not
merely the imparting
of knowledge; it is the mediation of learning – the
aim is to make learning possible.28 Laurillard
describes learning as a conversation: “the learning process must be
constituted as a dialogue between teacher and
student” and as “a
form of interaction between teacher and
student.”29 Le Brun and Johnstone explain the
importance of a student-centred approach to learning, and describe one
interpretation of teaching
as an “act of intervention in the
students’ construction of knowledge.”30 The
conversational interpretation need not imply that face-to-face teaching is
always necessary; rather, the intervention which constitutes
teaching is one
which in its totality represents a dialogue. Web-based teaching might thus form
one dimension of that dialogue.
While the objective of deep learning
permeates the literature on Internet-based teaching in other disciplines, this
does not lead
to a uniformity in teaching methods. This is unsurprising –
traditionally, most subjects are taught in classrooms, but the
approaches and
activities which occur within those classrooms vary greatly. The use of the
Internet can be broken down into two often
overlapping approaches: teaching
through the Internet, and teaching with the Internet. In the
former approach, the technology is used as a vehicle for learning; students
construct their knowledge through
the use of the Internet as an interactive
tool, working with discussion pages and web-based hypertext media in non-linear
models
of learning, taking control over the approach to and structure of their
learning.31 The focus on interaction gives rise to
substantial parallels with the theories and practice of problem based learning
(PBL).32 Teaching through the web in any given subject
could for instance involve instruction and assessment dominated by a combination
of
problem-based learning which draws on the searching and retrieval of
information through the web, contribution to discussion pages,
and perhaps the
building of a simple home page.
On the other hand, teaching with the
Internet is characterised by the use of the Internet as a vehicle for more
efficient course delivery, but in an essentially non-interactive
and
non-collaborative way. This approach would typically involve the delivery of
course materials, and basic communication functions
from lecturer to students,
or student to lecturer. It is easily suited as a supplementary strategy for
traditional teaching structures.
It often overlaps with the first approach where
discussion pages are included in otherwise non-interactive courses or course
support
web pages.33
Is one of the two approaches
to teaching better than the other? This, I would argue, depends on the teaching
objectives, the resources
available to students and staff,34
and other aspects of course structure and design. While there is some
lament at the under-utilisation of the technology and its
potentials,35 this seems to some extent to ignore the
context of flexible delivery and more importantly to miss the point. First,
highly interactive
teaching strategies require time, money and (frequently)
technological expertise – resources frequently unavailable or scarce
in
contemporary higher education. Secondly, if the point is to achieve teaching and
learning objectives, then this should drive the
use of technology; if the course
as a whole does not demand using technology to its limits, then there seems
little reason to do
so.36
The use of the web in
Introduction to Law was intended to replace the lectures. It was not intended to
establish a distinct form of
computer managed instruction, or the complete basis
for course instruction and evaluation. The instructional purpose of the
web-lectures
bore a closer analogy to distance education or open learning than
to interactive computer-based instruction.37 The
mixed-mode of teaching offered the opportunity to use different strategies from
those employed in distance learning, and the web
offered different possibilities
than traditional print-based media. The implications for student workload (and
the corresponding
impact on learning outcomes) were also a consideration
regarding the extent to which hypertext, information and interactivity should
drive the web-lectures.38 Hence, the approach to
teaching was primarily to teach with the Internet, rather than
through it.
Given this approach, the literature on distance learning
is valuable as it provides an excellent guide to the ways in which lecturing
over the web might be done creatively and with a view to deep and holistic
processes of learning. Among the UK sources which offer
general guidance on
compiling distance education material Race39 and
Rowntree40 are both excellent, the latter making good
use of a range of examples. For law teachers specifically, Johnstone’s
1996 work
Printed Teaching Materials41 provides
a theoretical background and practical examples, while the later (1997)
Designing Print Materials by Johnstone &
Joughin42 is shorter and less theoretical, but still an
excellent resource for considering ways in which web-based teaching might be
undertaken.
These four publications all have examples of how teaching materials
may be designed for flexible or distance learning, but their
real strength lies
in facilitating reflection upon one’s
teaching.43
With the teaching and learning
objectives in mind, and having formulated an approach to the use of the web with
the benefit of the
literature on distance education, deep learning through
web-lectures was seen as a real possibility, though the significance of a
mixed
mode of web and face-to-face teaching cannot be understated. The web-lectures
were to be one aspect of a whole teaching process
which aimed to facilitate deep
learning; to draw on Laurillard’s conversational interpretation,
“the question now before
us is the extent to which the educational media
can support the conversational framework and thereby assist the learning
process.”44
Learning Aims in Introduction to Law
The subject as a whole is designed first to require
students to engage in critical analysis of a selection of issues related to the
nature and operation of law, legal institutions and the legal process; and,
second, to equip students with basic skills to undertake
deep learning in other
subjects.45
Introduction to Law is envisaged
as a subject where students encounter, often for the first time, the processes
of critical inquiry and analysis which
characterise tertiary education. The
focus of the subject has always been the course readings. The lectures and
tutorials have been
ways to draw students into inquisitive and analytical
processes. Tutorial questions are very directly related to the course readings
and students are required not merely to understand any one article or extract,
but to be able to offer some critical reflection upon
the readings. They are
required to compare and contrast the readings, making judgments about what
arguments are convincing, what
arguments are flawed, what implications arise
from the different arguments in the literature, what questions are raised,
answered
and unanswered. They are asked to consider how these matters impact
upon what they do and the choices they make.
The assessment task related to
the “Law, Justice and Jurisprudence” component covered in the
lectures and seminars is
an open-book final examination. This requires students
to answer essay based questions which centre around critique and analysis.
The
questions usually require students to draw together and analyse different
readings from the course; students are informed from
the start of the course
that it will not be sufficient simply to explain different readings – they
must engage in analysis
of the materials.
ACHIEVING THE LEARNING AIMS THROUGH
FACE-TO-FACE
LECTURING
While there is no shortage of critiques regarding the poverty of lecturing as
a mode of instruction, there is also a good deal of
material regarding how to
lecture well and make the most of what is often a teaching framework academic
staff are locked into as
a matter of university or faculty
administration.46 Face-to-face lectures then become one
part of the whole teaching strategy in a subject; they may not be the preferred
or most effective
way of contributing to deep learning by students, but still
might serve explanatory47 and thought provoking
purposes,48 especially when placed within a subject
structure which also involves teaching in smaller
groups.49
The face-to-face lecture in
Introduction to Law was used in previous semesters to explain materials
as a way of enabling students to grasp the readings effectively, as a stimulus
to read the materials critically with a view to encouraging the deep learning
objectives, and as a guide to drawing students into
the process of critical
inquiry and analysis.50
Teaching evaluations in
previous semesters indicated that students in the past have found the
explanatory aspect of the lectures very
helpful. It offered a guide to themes
and arguments, which was most useful when readings were difficult. Students were
encouraged
to listen and take notes where relevant (with the benefit of
point-form overheads to structure the lecture and their approach to
the
materials). In 1998, students were provided with these overheads through the Law
Library web-page.
The more sophisticated aspects of the lecture were
concerned with analysis of the materials and the arguments. Questions were posed
for students, attention was drawn to particular parts of the readings, and they
were encouraged to consider how a consideration of
specific passages and issues
might assist them in answering broader and more thematic tutorial
questions.
The benefits of the face-to-face lecture lay particularly in its
transient nature. Not reduced to a permanent form, lectures could
include
express explanations about the materials without fear of substituting for
students completing the readings themselves. While
students could later use
their lecture notes to assist them in reading, comprehending and analysing the
materials, the absence of
any concrete notes from the lecturer meant that the
focus remained on the course materials and readings.
ACHIEVING THE LEARNING AIMS THROUGH WEB-BASED LECTURING
The prospect of a web-based lecture raised some difficult issues. How could a meaningful explanation of the readings be provided, especially for more difficult pieces, without that being merely a simplified and less voluminous precis of the materials?51 If the focus was to remain on the course readings as the object of study, how could the pitfalls of an approach centring around reading lecture notes be avoided?
Web-lectures as an Explanatory Tool: Some Concerns
If students are to understand the materials and the
point of the course, they need to read and comprehend those materials in a
sophisticated
manner. Simplified explanations in permanent form may detract from
such a project, hence my reluctance in the web-lectures to provide
written
explanations of the readings.
There are assumptions implicit within this
position. The most important of these is that students attach more significance
to the
written word than to the spoken word. This assumption can be justified to
some extent on three different grounds. First, the discipline
of law turns on
words: they are the tools of lawyers and it is in the written form that law in
the Western tradition comes into existence.
Within such a discipline the leaning
towards the written word will (and arguably should) be the focus of study.
Second, Introduction to Law was centred around such a premise: the course
materials and readings are the focus of inquiry and analysis. Third, students
are instructed
in legal writing that the best support for their arguments comes
from written sources. Moreover, it is frequently difficult to impress
upon
students the degrees of authoritativeness associated with different works. All
law teachers will be familiar with the (depressing)
tendency of students to take
the “easier” options of reading headnotes rather than judgments,
textbooks rather than casebooks,
commentary rather than cases,
“nutshells” rather than texts, lecture notes rather than course
readings.52
It was one of the principal aims of the
“Starting Out” project not to offer students yet another alternative
to reduce
their readings. This would defeat the entire purpose of the Faculty
and subject objectives. The lecture as an explanatory tool needed
to be
different in a web-based format. The transient nature of face-to-face
instruction can facilitate a reflective and interpretive
student-centred
approach, but this evaporates when explanation in lecturing shifts to written
form. If the integrity and value of
the educational process is to be maintained,
written explanation of readings (while still necessary at times) cannot be
permitted
to drive web-based delivery.53 An alternative
approach may be to use the multi-media aspects of the Internet more
substantially (including, for instance, video
or sound), but this would require
a great deal more time, expertise and resources than many academic staff or
departments have.
Web-lectures as an Explanatory Tool: A Guide to the Readings
The objectives of the Faculty and the subject
underpinned the web-lectures. The web-based lectures were a guide to the
readings (just
as the face-to-face lectures were also a guide to the readings)
with a great deal of specificity, premised upon student centred learning
as the
most effective way to achieve the subject and Faculty objectives. The lectures
sought to take students through the readings
very closely, posing questions and
directing them to those particular passages in the readings which best explained
the article or
extract at hand and drew their attention to the issues which were
the focus of the questions.
Web-based lectures in this way still serve the
explanatory purpose of lectures. Arguably, they enhance some aspects of the
learning
process because they allow students to work through the material at
their own pace.54 They enable a lecturer to direct
students comprehensively through an argument, focusing on the crucial issues,
showing students how
to read a complicated piece of work. Such instruction
simply cannot be done in a face-to-face lecture.
Some extracts of the
lectures follow.
NATURAL LAW Example 1
The first point Davies [at 61] makes about natural law concerns its source: “it is not created by any person or culture, but [has] an existence independent of the individual or collective will. Natural law is something which is said to exist whether or not any person, judge or legislature has ordained what the law is.”
How does the quote from Cicero demonstrate this point? (Hint: Use the four issues which Davies raised at 61-2.)
INTERNATIONAL LAW & THE ACQUISITION
OF SOVEREIGNTY Example 2
What is sovereignty? If you are not sure, get out a dictionary and look it up before you move on. The British acquired sovereignty over Australia under the rules of International law. International law is a body of law established by custom and by agreement and which regulates the relationships between nations. Among the relevant aspects of such law in the 18th century were rules about how countries (of Europe) could acquire new lands anywhere in the world. There were three ways identified:
1 Cession (which
involved treaties)
2 Conquest
3 Occupation of land that was
terra nullius.
If Britain, for instance, acquired land by any of these methods, international law recognised that such an acquisition would be valid. The correctness of such an acquisition could not be adjudicated in British courts; it was the prerogative of the Crown.
While the acquisition itself could not be adjudicated in the British courts (the municipal courts as they are referred to in the judgment), what was an issue for the courts was the system of law to be applied in the new colony. That is, the acquisition of sovereignty is not justiciable, but the consequences of such an acquisition are justiciable. For instance, the question might be whether British law applies immediately? Or does the existing law of the land continue? Or is it some other arrangement that occurs?
Now, under which of these three modes of acquisition was sovereignty acquired over Australia?
The acquisition of sovereignty
What do the three ideas mean? First, cession refers to the making of treaties. Conquest – well, that almost speaks for itself. But the “occupation of land that was terra nullius” – what does that mean?
In short, it means that there was nobody on the land at all. This method of acquisition referred to “desert uninhabited countries” which were then occupied and became the property of Britain. This doctrine – the doctrine of terra nullius – was, however, expanded beyond such empty lands to include some inhabited lands.
EXPLANATION THROUGH QUESTIONS: AVOIDING SURFACE LEARNING
Adopting a question-based strategy was not without its problems. Ramsden describes one set of teaching materials where students were prompted with questions about the readings:
When the Gothenburg researchers tried to give students hints about how to
take a deep approach to reading a text – by inserting
questions that
encouraged students to relate the various parts – a curious thing
happened. The students in question actually
adopted a rather extreme form of
surface learning. They “invented” a way of answering the inserted
questions without
engaging with the text. The research team’s questions,
which were intended to be a means of helping students to understand
what they
were reading, were perceived by the students as ends in themselves. And in order
to answer them expeditiously, the students
adopted a superficial approach to
reading, focused on being able to mention the parts of the
text.55
The point he draws out is that student
learning processes are dependent upon their perceptions of what is required;
there is no point
in helping students develop deep learning skills “if the
educational environment is giving them the message that surface ones
are
rewarded.”56 Unfortunately Ramsden offers little
further commentary or insight on what appears to be a significant point; that
is, it would seem
to warrant more investigation how such outcomes might be
avoided, especially when the techniques seem directed at the enhancement
of a
fundamental skill and learning process.57
Rather
than dispose of a question-based approach, the focus of the web-lectures and the
subject as a whole was the development and
application of critical and
analytical skills so as to compare, contrast and critique the readings once they
had been understood.
The web-lectures in Introduction to Law sought to
avoid the surface learning outcomes by expressly presenting complex questions
which were then the focus of seminars. As
the following section explains, the
key questions to be answered (the seminar questions) could not be sufficiently
addressed with
only the surface or rote knowledge which might be acquired from
the questions which centred on the content of the readings.
Web-based Lectures as a Critical Tool: Inquiry and Analysis of the Readings
How can processes of critical analysis be introduced
and taught to students using web-based lectures? The strategy employed built
on
the question-based explanatory approach.
Students were frequently asked to
compare and contrast materials or particular arguments and themes from different
readings. In doing
this, they were often reminded expressly of the analytical
objectives of the course. It was pointed out to students that these were
the
types of questions which would feature in the examination; that is, they would
be required in exams to reflect upon the arguments
and themes in the readings,
making an argument in response to a question and supporting their answer with
appropriate reference to
the course readings.
For instance, where some
questions referred students to page references and the content of the materials,
others required students
to use the answers to the questions regarding content
in order to compare and contrast different parts of the materials. In example
3
below, the first three questions refer to the content of the materials, while
the last attaches to the critical and thematic issues
which arise:
Example 3
If the political association flows from human nature, does it matter who Aristotle included in the political community?
Socratic Possibilities
The web-lectures hold within them the possibility of
something approaching a Socratic style of teaching, at least insofar as they
enable the posing of questions to a student with a view to establishing that a
proposition is understood (the content based questions)
and then posing
questions about that proposition as it relates to other propositions also
understood correctly (the critical and
analytical questions). The objective is
to raise the possibility of contradiction,58 or of
understanding the possibility of relationships between the propositions that
students may not have considered beforehand.59 The
web-based form of this teaching strategy60 may hold
great possibilities because it enables students to travel at their own pace, and
for each student to engage in the dialogue
individually.61
The dialogue in a web-based format
is more significant than in, for instance, a pre-written study guide because it
takes account of
feedback, understandings (or misunderstandings), or
developments which occur from week to week. The conversation which constitutes
teaching occurs not just within the web-lecture, but within the subject as a
whole.
The relationship between the web-based lectures, the seminars and the
exam
The critical and comparative
questions (such as the fourth question in example 3) form the heart of the
seminars so that the web-lecture
constitutes a part of the critical apparatus
for deep learning, but is closely connected to the seminars. Students are
required to
use the knowledge they acquire through the readings and lectures in
order to understand more complex issues.
The web-based lectures and the final
examination are both written in such a way as to provide students with a solid
grounding in both
the content of the course and the analytical skills they will
need to demonstrate to answer the examination questions. On the other
hand, they
are also designed to avoid students merely reciting the lecture notes. The
examination is intended to contribute to and
be reflective of the Faculty and
subject objectives of deep learning and critical analysis.
Web-based Lectures and Communication
Among the most significant challenges faced in developing a teaching strategy was the issue of communication in the web-based lectures. Two facets of the communicative process were of particular concern: the degree of formality of the lectures and the de-personalisation of teaching and learning.
The Question of Formality
The question of formality is significant in the
teaching process, be it face-to-face lecturing, seminar teaching or web- based
learning.
The style chosen by any teacher is generally that with which they are
most comfortable. The web- lectures were approached on this
basis, and I wanted
them to be informal and at times conversational.62 The
desire was to distinguish them from other written materials students use and to
infuse them with the character of the individual
lecturer in order to
personalise the learning process at least to some extent.
The problem which
arises most pressingly, especially in a first year subject, is that students are
expected to write their essays
in a formal and scholarly manner. Would a less
than formal written presentation mislead students as to the expectations of
their
own written work? To prevent this problem students were expressly
instructed in the first web- lecture that the lectures served a
different
communicative purpose than an essay, thus the style and tone was informal;
essays were to be presented as a formal, scholarly
piece of work.
During
semester there were no queries nor problems with written expression being
informal. There is no way of knowing whether the
instruction in the first
web-lecture was responsible for this. My impression is that it acted as a
clarification; students seemed
to understand that formal written expression and
correct legal citation would always be required in
essays.63
The De-personalisation of Learning and Teaching
When face-to-face lecturing is abandoned, students
are deprived of the presence of an academic. As a matter of information, this
may
make little difference. As noted above, it may even improve the
student’s grasp of the materials. Teaching, however, is not
only about
information and explanation, but about communication. If one role of the
academic is to foster an intellectual culture,
then this can perhaps be
undertaken through the imparting of the desire for knowledge by example. It is
difficult to convey one’s
passion for learning through a non-personal
medium. In every student’s life they have stumbled across good teachers
and bad,
inspiring and uninspiring ones. Race describes the benefits of
attending a lecture as including the value of a shared experience
and the
whetting of the appetite to learn – “creating the
want.”64 The shift to web-based delivery is one
which needs to be balanced carefully with the significance of such communication
and with
the possibility that a Faculty might lose its intellectual
constituency.
Such an issue is compounded by the casualisation of teaching in
academic programs everywhere. If a full-time staff member is to coordinate
and
lecture in the subject, and those lectures are run across the web, it is quite
possible that students could go for a number of
semesters before being taught
face-to-face by a full-time member of academic
staff.65
This problem was addressed at least to some
extent by “personalising” the lectures through the use of an
informal style,
the subject coordinator/lecturer attending each tutorial class
in the first two weeks so as to at least identify himself to the class,
weekly
consultation hours when the lecturer was available to all students in the
subject, and by maintaining face-to-face seminar
classes. Nevertheless,
web-based delivery of lectures is undoubtedly accompanied by de-personalisation
of teaching.66
CONCLUSION
The teaching strategy implemented in Introduction to Law was designed
with the aim of achieving the objectives of the UWS Macarthur Faculty of Law LLB
program and the objectives of the subject.
The Introduction to Law web
page and the web-lectures were characterised by the use of a closely directed
guide to readings which posed questions to students.
While there was a limited
amount of explanation which enabled some overview, summaries and contextual
material to be provided, students
were required to complete the course readings
in order to adequately grasp the arguments and themes addressed in the subject.
The
goals of critical and comparative analysis were similarly addressed by
posing questions to students, which required them to reflect
on the merits of
different readings and the implications of different arguments.
The
development of the strategy thus represents not so much an excursion forward
into the brave new world of Internet technology –
the use of technology
should not of itself be seen to represent “progress” in teaching.
Instead, it is a reflection on
what we do, looking back to the rationales and
objectives of teaching and learning in higher education. The use of the web was
thus
not conceived of as a step “beyond” lecturing, but rather as a
reconstitution of it in a different medium. The fundamental
and conceptual
nature of these distinctions became clearer throughout the semester and is
considered more thoroughly in the project
review.67
As Biggs reminds us, there is “no
single best method of teaching, some methods are better than others. Better
teaching methods
are those that are more effective in getting the learner to
engage in productive learning activities.”68 The
aim here has been to contribute to the development of what might be a better way
to use the web for teaching not only with regard
in part to content and method,
but also with respect to the process of thinking about teaching and course
development. The development
of teaching strategies for web-lecturing (or any
form of web-based teaching) is, to some extent, no different from other forms of
course development: a critical, creative and reflective approach should enhance
the experience and outcomes for students and staff
alike. It is crucial to
remember that teaching on the web is a different form of teaching and as such
the teaching strategy employed
requires a substantial reconsideration. Lecturing
over the web is, in the end, not lecturing at all.
* Division of Law, Macquarie University.
Email:
lmcnamar@law.law.mq.edu.au.
© 2001. (2000) Legal Educ Rev
149.
This paper and its companion Part II article (which follows
in this same issue) are based on a project funded by and undertaken at
the
University of Western Sydney, Macarthur in 1999. The articles were written and
submitted to Legal Education Review with the aim
of presenting to the wider
academic community the experiences and outcomes of the project, and in doing so
to make some critical
arguments about the place of technology in law teaching.
Although the bulk of the material was later included in the author’s
report to the funding body, which has since been published as L McNamara,
Starting Out: An Introduction to Law and An Introduction to Flexible Delivery
– Final report on a project funded by the Centre
for Enhancement of
Teaching and Learning, UWS Macarthur (Sydney: CELT – UWS, 2000), the
articles in this journal locate the material within an analytical and
argumentative framework
that aims to make the discussion relevant well beyond
the specific place and context in which the project was undertaken. I am
indebted
to the two anonymous referees and to the Review’s editors
for the extensive comment and criticism which has challenged many of my earlier
views and subsequently added a greater depth
and rigour to both pieces since the
original submissions were made. In addition, I would especially like to thank
Andrew Lynch who
took the time to share with me great quantities of coffee, to
discuss so many of the issues and ideas as this paper developed, and
to comment
on drafts throughout the process of writing and revision. The flaws are, of
course, my responsibility alone.
1 M Le Brun & R Johnstone, The Quiet (R)evolution: Improving Student Learning in Law (Sydney: Law Book Company, 1994) xi-xii.
2 R Oliver & A Omari, Using online technologies to support problem based learning: Learners’ responses and perceptions (1999) 15(1) Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 58, at 59; M Freeman, Flexibility in access, interaction and assessment: the case for web-based teaching programs (1997) 13(1) Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 23, at 24, 38. Mark Freeman notes both student and staff dissatisfaction with this trend: M Freeman, The role of the Internet in teaching large undergraduate classes (1996) 1(1) Flexible Online Learning <http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/folp/article/sample2.htm> (17 February 2000).
3 G Hart, Creating an Online Teaching Space (1996) 12(2) Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 79, at 91-92.
4 D Laurillard & D Margetson, Introducing a Flexible Learning Methodology: Discussion Paper (Occasional Paper No 7) (Brisbane: Griffiths Institute for Higher Education, 1997) at 1-2; R Mason, Anatomy of the Virtual University, paper presented at the Symposium The Virtual University?, University of Melbourne, 21-22 November 1996. For a critical perspective see ACL Zelmer, Flexible Learning: the New World Order and NTEU (1999) 3(6) Advocate: Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union 28.
5 Flexible delivery should not, however, be equated simply with web- based delivery or computer-based instruction, but includes a variety of factors such as audio or video resources, administrative flexibility and flexibility within degree programs. Laurillard & Margetson, supra note 4; I Nikolava & B Collis, Flexible learning and design of instruction (1998) 29(1) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 59, at 61.
6 For instance, T Greening, WWW support of student learning: A case study (1998) 14(1) Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 49, at 54; M Wild & C Quinn, Implications of educational theory for the design of instructional multimedia (1998) 29(1) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 73; R Oliver, A Omari & J Herrington, Investigating implementation strategies for WWW-based learning environments (1998) 25(2) Int’l Jnl of Instructional Media 121.
7 G Hart, supra note 3, at 91. The trend towards flexibility in education should be treated with care with regard to both institutional and governmental contexts; the objectives involved could be interpreted far more broadly than identified here, but more worrying and less visible are the implications for the constitution of knowledge within universities. K Nicoll, ‘Fixing’ the ‘facts’: flexible learning as policy invention (1998) 17(3) HERD 291 presents an interesting (if somewhat convoluted) Foucauldian analysis of the emergence of the notion of flexibility in education policy as being a “discursive invention.” She argues that the value of knowledge has been changed as institutions are compelled to reorient and restructure themselves to environments and practices of flexible learning in a climate of economic rationalism. The suggestion is that the buzzword of “flexibility” is not a benign policy term to be used in the ways that academics and institutions might consider it appropriate with regard to objectives regarding the pursuit and passing on of knowledge, but is a value-laden term which pushes universities in particular directions. The result, she argues (at 300-01), is that contrary to the professed objectives of much flexible learning, “rather than becoming free, learners are subjected to more diverse and multiple relations of power involving, in many cases, an intensification of the authority of the employer in learning.” By this she seems to mean that institutional structures are actually less flexible because they are geared more to the production of graduates and the demand for particular professional skills in the market. An example of a paper which would be an appropriate subject of Nicoll’s criticisms, is R Lewis, The role of technology in learning: managing to achieve a vision (1999) 30(2) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 141. On the other hand, Nicoll also acknowledges and argues that, power being discursive, the meaning of flexibility is contestable; (at 302-03) she sees her own paper as a contribution to contesting meaning. To locate this article within Nicoll’s understanding of the policy dynamics of flexible delivery, I am seeking if not to contest the meaning of flexibility at an institutional level then at least to contribute to the development of practices which might improve learning in spite of the policy invention she identifies.
8 L McNamara, Why teaching matters and technology doesn’t: An evaluation and review of web-based lectures (Flexible delivery in a first year law subject, Part II), this issue.
9 The project was funded principally by the UWS Macarthur Flexlearn grants scheme with support from the UWS Macarthur Faculty of Law (now the UWS School of Law). The grant applicants were myself (as project leader) and the Dean of the Faculty, Professor Robin Woellner.
10 The pace of technological development and expansion of flexible delivery across the University of Western Sydney would no longer require these steps to be taken. Staff will find increasingly that institutions adopt a uniform and supported program or programs through which flexible delivery can be conducted. My suggestion for anyone considering a similar project would be to make the most of technology supported by one’s institution.
11 Most notably in the Australian context P Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London: Routledge, 1992) on teaching generally, and Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, on teaching law.
12 Ramsden, supra note 11, at 18-21 notes that there appears to be a general consensus among lecturers with regard to the aims of higher education. This is not to say that staff expectations of students are unified with regard to expectations of students; Akerlind & Jenkins discuss the need for communication among staff so as to have consistent, fair and realistic expectations about student performance and learning outcomes at different stages of a degree: G Akerlind & S Jenkins, Academics’ views of the relative roles and responsibilities of teachers and learners in a first-year university course (1998) 17(3) HERD 277.
13 N Entwistle, Approaches to learning and forms of understanding, in B Dart & G Boulton-Lewis eds, Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Melbourne: ACER Press, 1998) 73. See also Ramsden, supra note 11, at 46 and throughout. There is not the space in this paper to undertake a review of the basic issues, but good short reviews can be found, for instance, in M Israel, Teaching criminology through interview-based assignments [1997] LegEdRev 7; (1997) 8(2) Legal Educ Rev 141; C Bond & M Le Brun, Promoting Learning in Law [1996] LegEdRev 1; (1996) 7(1) Legal Educ Rev 1; R Johnstone & G Joughin, Designing Print Materials for Flexible Teaching and Learning in Law (Sydney: Cavendish, 1997). More substantial coverage is found in Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, and R Johnstone, Printed Teaching Materials: A new approach for law teachers (London: Cavendish, 1996). Note also the idea of holistic learning (for instance, see Ramsden, supra note 11, at 42-44) and the relationship of deep and holistic learning with strategic learning: Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 59-63.
14 Ramsden, supra note 11, at 82. See also Johnstone (1996), supra note 13, at 11; Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 59-60.
15 J Goldring, Coping with the virtual campus: Some hints and opportunities for legal education [1995] LegEdRev 5; (1995) 6(1) Legal Educ Rev 91, at 107-08, referring to F Marton & R Saljo, On Qualitative Differences in Learning II: Outcomes as a function of the learner’s conception of the risk (1976) 46 Br Jnl of Educ Psych 115.
16 The subject has attracted some attention at conferences: C Clark, Making a start in internet resources to encourage student learning, paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Law Teachers’ Association 1998, University of Otago, Dunedin. <http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/ALTA/ALTA%20Papers/Clark.html> (17 February 2000); D Parker, Using the internet for class teaching: some further reflections, paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Law Teachers’ Association 1998, University of Otago, Dunedin. <http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/ALTA/ALTA%20Papers/ Parker.html> (17 February 2000). The published Australian literature on law and the Internet in either law, education or technology journals is negligible. In the US, see M Geist, Where Can You Go Today?: The Computerization of Legal Education from Workbooks to the Web (1997) 11 Harv J of Law & Tech 141.
17 Goldring, supra note 15, at 110, 115-16.
18 The balance is already changing; the post-LLB Practical Legal Training courses are widely offered in an on-line mode. The LLB program at Macquarie University has a substantial intake of external students. At the University of London, an LLB is offered completely on-line. Nova Southeastern University in Florida, USA, has technology and Internet delivery as its core focus in the Law program.
19 Laurillard & Margetson, supra note 4.
20 Johnstone & Joughin, supra note 13.
21 A Vision for the Faculty of Law, UWS Macarthur (September 1996) at 1.
22 Id at 2, 3.
23 UWS Macarthur Faculty of Law Course Documentation (1995) at 10 (references omitted).
24 Id.
25 This presumes that current teaching does achieve deep learning outcomes. It is an assumption that the literature may not generally support.
26 For instance, Ramsden, supra note 11, at 159-60 is pessimistic, though Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 244-45 were willing to allow for some positive vision. The rapid change in technology and content on the Internet during even the last five years is, however, suggestive of grounds for more optimism.
27 D Laurillard, Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology (London: Routledge, 1993). The material is now 8 years old, but the critical discussion at 120-26 of hypertext media (such as the web) is excellent. See also 167-71 on computer conferencing (which would now be identified as simple, threaded discussion groups).
28 Id at 13-29 [at 13, quoting Ramsden supra note 11, at 5]. Particularly relevant to the idea of law as imparting knowledge and what constitutes teaching, Robert Gordon argues that one’s understanding of what law is might inform one’s approach to teaching law: R Gordon, Critical Legal Studies as a Teaching Method, Against the Background of the Intellectual Politics of Modern Legal Education in the United States [1989] LegEdRev 6; (1989) 1(1) Legal Educ Rev 59, at 76-83.
29 Laurillard, supra note 27, at 94, 95; generally 96ff.
30 Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 71, 89-92. For an exploration of how law students see learning, see Bond & Le Brun, supra note 13, where the authors argue at 28-29 that “learning is not simply the transmission of content or the facilitation of learning. It involves our active intervention to help students learn.” On the complexity of lecturers’ perceptions of student learning and their own place in it, see S Burroughs-Lange, University lecturers concept of their role (1996) 15(1) HERD 29.
31 See for instance, Greening, supra note 6, at 49-54; A Brown, Designing for learning: What are the essential features of an effective online course? (1997) 13(2) Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 115, at 116-17; Oliver, Omari & Herrington, supra note 6; Wild & Quinn, supra note 6; and to a lesser extent R Cohen, Business Law in Cyberspace (1997) 15 J of Legal Studies Educ 169. Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 243-48 address non-Internet forms of computer based instruction with similar goals. Neil Selwyn is less optimistic about the use of the web and places some caveats on the widespread enthusiasm: N Selwyn, Virtual concerns: restrictions of the Internet as a learning environment (1999) 30(1) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 69.
32 Oliver & Omari, supra note 2; Greening, supra note 6.
33 For instance, this approach dominated the projects in G Hart, supra note 3 (a management statistics subject); M Freeman (1997), supra note 2 (business finance); Parker, supra note 16 (company law); C Clark, supra note 16 (company law and an Australian legal system course); and C Hotchkiss, The Internet as a Teaching Tool in Business Law: New Opportunities and New Resources (1997) 15 J of Legal Studies Educ 257 at 266-69 (intellectual property issues). Anecdotal evidence leaves no doubt that there are many law subjects throughout Australia & elsewhere which use the Internet significantly, though are not documented by publication.
34 Freeman (1997), supra note 2, at 26 identifies a range of problems that can occur where the teaching process is poorly resourced.
35 For instance, Greening, supra note 6, at 54; Oliver & Omari, supra note 2, at 59-60.
36 Greening, supra note 6, at 53-54; S Ehrmann, Asking the right questions: What does research tell us about technology and higher learning? (1995) 27(2) Change 20, at 26-27. Generally, see R Owston, The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning? (1997) 26(2) Educ Researcher 27.
37 The web has become a significant medium for distance learning both in interactive and non-interactive ways. The most comprehensive exploration has been undertaken by the Open University in the UK where a series of articles examines the approaches and outcomes: P Thomas et al, A holistic approach to supporting distance learning using the Internet: transformation, not translation (1998) 29(2) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 149; L Carswell et al, A holistic approach to supporting distance learning using the Internet: transformation, not translation (2000) 31(1) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 29; other articles in the same journal are forthcoming. See also M Collins, Comparing Web, Correspondence and Lecture versions of a second-year non-major Biology course (2000) 31(1) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 21; R Thompson, J Winterfield & M Flanders, Into the world of electronic classrooms: a passport to flexible learning (1998) 29(2) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 177.
38 The unwieldy nature of information on the web was a reason to contain rather than expand the use of hypertext. While some links were included, this was generally not part of the subject content but peripheral or incidental to it. That is, the aim was to illustrate for students the potentials of the web, without requiring them to, as it were, climb all the trees in the forest at once. The significance of a manageable workload is noted by Ramsden, supra note 11, at 137-38; see also infra note 50 and accompanying text. The unknown computing competency would make a highly interactive subject inappropriate for first year students; the necessity for students to understand the medium in order to get the most out of it is noted by Thompson et al, supra note 37.
39 P Race, The Open Learning Handbook: Promoting quality in designing and delivering flexible learning 2nd ed (London: Kogan Page, 1994) esp chs 1-3, 5, 10.
40 D Rowntree, Teaching Through Self-Instruction: How to develop open learning materials rev ed (London: Kogan Page, 1994).
41 Johnstone, supra note 13.
42 Johnstone & Joughin, supra note 13.
43 For a useful “top 10” list and commentary on references on teaching materials, see R Johnstone & M Le Brun, Our Top 10 Books on Education: For the ‘Educationally-Curious’ Bibliophile (1994) 5(1) Legal Educ Rev 105; to that list should be added their own book of that year, The Quiet (R)evolution: Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1.
44 Laurillard, supra note 27, at 105.
45 The relationship between course content and approach to learning is important with a view to establishing a foundation for future thinking about law and deep learning skills. Keyes & Orr note that legal theory is significant in first year because it enhances both student understanding of course content and student learning in future subjects. It builds a more sophisticated and holistic conception of law and of learning with “a respect for the different possibilities of law and legal knowledge.” It is also consistent with “an educational process creating both an awareness of different ways of thinking and a flexible framework of knowledge.” M Keyes & G Orr, Giving theory ‘A Life’: First Year Student Conceptions of Legal Theory [1996] LegEdRev 2; (1996) 7(1) Legal Educ Rev 31,at 52.
46 Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 257-72 provide a good selection of damning criticisms as well as some guidance on how to avoid the worst pitfalls. For criticism, see also Ramsden supra note 11, at 152-56, 165-70; Laurillard, supra note 27, at 107-09; A d’Amato, The Decline and Fall of Law Teaching in the Age of Student Consumerism (1987) 37 J Legal Educ 461, at 464-65. Race, supra note 39, at 182-94 provides a very constructive critique. D Bligh, What’s the use of lectures? 5th ed (Exeter: Intellect, 1998) provides a qualified defence of lectures (see esp 24-25) and numerous strategies to improve them. R Cannon, Lecturing 2nd ed (Canberra: HERDSA, 1992) provides both critique and guidance.
47 Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 263-64.
48 On promoting thought in lectures, see Bligh supra note 46 at 208-13.
49 It should be noted that small group teaching by no means guarantees effective student learning: Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 272-91; Ramsden, supra note 11, at 156-59.
50 Cannon, supra note 46, at 31, discusses the process of moving from “telling” in lectures to that of learning and teaching: “The basic principle to keep in mind is that where [purposes other than presenting information about a subject] is the purpose, students must be placed in a situation where they have to think....”
51 There was also the need to ensure that the lectures did not increase student workload, especially by simply increasing the readings. On the detrimental effect of heavy student workload, especially that driven by content, see Ramsden, supra note 11, at 137-38.
52 The reflections by D’Amato supra note 46, at 465-66 [note 9] identify the worrying nature of this trend with regard to the absence of meaningful critique and analysis, and perhaps even the absence of the possibility of such meaningful engagement.
53 I would argue that similar concerns are raised when print-based lecture materials are used. If the objectives are those of ‘deep learning’, it seems difficult to identify the processes by which such learning occurs if explanatory material dominates the educational process. The open-learning literature is similarly ‘un-explanatory’ favouring an active participation by students in the learning process.
54 Richard Clark notes that the ability to work at one’s own pace was the most common reason given for preferring self-directed study: R Clark, Student Opinion of Flexible Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, in W Wade et al eds, Flexible Learning in Higher Education (London: Kogan Page, 1994) 137.
55 Ramsden, supra note 11, at 63; he also identifies – though does not elaborate on – a similar outcome in Australia.
56 Ramsden, supra note 11, at 54.
57 On critical reading, see D du Boulay, Argument in reading: what does it involve and how can students become better critical readers (1999) 4(2) Teaching in Higher Educ 147.
58 See Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 1, at 282-83 regarding Socratic method as propositions and contradictions.
59 On Socratic method, see also D’Amato, supra note 46, at 466; A Stone, Legal Education on the Couch (1971) 85 Harv LR 392 at 406-08.
60 One suggestion put to me was to refer to it as techno-Socratic, though while this captures the technological aspects, it echoes too much of the lawyer as technician (precisely what I wish to avoid). Another option might be “cyber-Socratic.” On the other hand, maybe such a label should be avoided as it does not take seriously enough the skill and sophistication of good Socratic teaching and overstates the interactive nature of what is a static use of the web.
61 I am unsure of the extent to which it may address some of the concerns identified by Morgan regarding the “hesitant student” and issues of gender, such as the silencing of women in the classroom through Socratic teaching: J Morgan, The Socratic method: Silencing cooperation [1989] LegEdRev 13; (1989) 1(2) Legal Educ Rev 151. On the one hand, it would seem prima facie to address the silencing of women in the classroom (by virtue of removing the classroom), but on the other hand an increased sense of engagement in web-lectures may serve to illuminate exclusion in seminar classes.
62 This approach is recommended by Rowntree, supra note 40, at 155, 207-11; Johnstone, supra note 13, at 80; Race, supra note 39, at 105-31, esp 106-10, 129-31.
63 Race, id at 130, argues that conversational lectures, including the use of contractions (see also Rowntree, id at 208-09) will not impact negatively on student writing but, if anything, favourably as it encourages them to write in a simple and straightforward manner.
64 Race, supra note 39, at 184.
65 This is problematic not because casual staff are not good teachers (often students would claim they are better!), but because of the structural impediments they face. Casual staff – while often excellent (and those who taught in Introduction to Law while the project ran were all excellent) – do not generally have the same opportunities for staff training and development, nor funding or opportunities to participate in law teaching workshops or the like, nor the continuity in teaching the same subjects regularly which enables more substantial reflection on the relationship between course content and teaching and learning. On the importance of course content vis à vis teaching and learning see Ramsden, supra note 11, at 124-37 (esp 124-25), 167.
66 There is arguably also some concern that web-based delivery removes interaction between students. This was not such a concern in Introduction to Law because of the mixed-mode of teaching which retained the weekly seminar classes. In particular, student interaction is perhaps least significant in lectures to large groups.
67 McNamara, supra note 8.
68 J Biggs, Teaching for better learning (1989-90) 2(2) Legal Educ Rev 133, at 144.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdRev/2000/6.html