Assuring Quality in the Assessment of Negotiation Skills – a Case Study in the Teaching of Trusts
| Authors: |
Wendy Harris LLB (Hons), LLM (QUT)
Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology School of Law
|
|
Melinda Shirley BA, LLB (Hons), Grad Dip Leg Prac, LLM
(Bond)
Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology School of Law
|
| Issue: |
Volume 9, Number 3 (September 2002)
|
Paper presented at the Australasian Law Teachers' Association annual conference hosted by Murdoch University School of Law, Perth,
Western Australia September 29 - October 2 2002.
Contents
- In its major review of the Federal Civil Justice System[1]
the Australian Law Reform Commission concluded that legal education should be more concerned with "what lawyers need to be able to
do " as distinct from the traditional Australian approach which has been centred around "what lawyers need to know". In response
to that recommendation and a number of other recent reports echoing the same theme,[2]
the Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Law undertook an extensive review of the core units within its undergraduate
law degree.
- As a result of a successful university large teaching and learning grant in 2000, the Faculty was able to integrate professional and
generic capabilities within the content of all substantive undergraduate law units to ensure incremental development throughout the
degree. Through a further university large grant in 2002, the Faculty is now addressing the challenges faced in the re-formulation
of assessment and feedback practices to assure their validity and reliability in the new teaching and learning environment.
- This paper will outline the issues faced in the design of an assessment task and appropriate assessment criteria for negotiation skills,
the skill selected for integration into the Trusts Unit. Through a case study developed as an assessment task in Trusts, this paper
will then demonstrate the method used to evaluate those criteria to ensure quality and best assessment practice.
- Essential to the project was the pedagogical aim to embed skills training within the content of learning and to specifically assess
competency levels within each of the skills. Ideally this would lead to the development of a "student capability profile". To be
effective, such a learning approach required each skill to be developed through a cycle of instruction, practice, feedback and assessment
both horizontally and vertically through the LLB degree.
- The first step required the identification of the generic and discipline-specific capabilities required by, and of, our graduates.
These were ascertained from a number of sources including:
- The 2000 research report of the Evaluation and Investigations Programme (EIP), Higher Education Division of DETYA, undertaken by
ACNielson Research Services on Employer Satisfaction with Graduate Skills.[3]
- The survey produced by the Centre for Legal Education concerning the use of skills by law graduates ("Vignaendra Report").[4]
- The QUT Manual of Policies and Procedures[5]
which sets out desired graduate capabilities;
- International studies including the list of core skills and values set out in the American Bar Association's MacCrate Report[6]
and surveys conducted by the Law Discipline Network of tertiary providers in the United Kingdom.[7]
- Four broad categories of generic and discipline specific skills were identified to form the basis of the study, being: attitudinal
skills; cognitive skills; communication skills; and relational skills. Those four categories were then broken down into specific
skills which would be developed across the range of undergraduate core subjects within the LLB degree.
Attitudinal Skills
|
Cognitive Skills
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Social Justice Orientation
|
|
|
|
- Discipline & Ethical Knowledge
|
|
|
|
Communication
Skills
|
Relational
Skills
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Appreciation of race, gender, culture
& socio-economic differences specifically and diversity generally
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- To ensure incremental development, each specific skill was then broken down into three levels to represent gradual attainment. The
first level provides a theoretical framework for and application of the component parts of the skill, the second level provides an
opportunity to practise the component parts of the skill and the third level offers an understanding of the skill in the context
of practice.
- A table was then devised which set out in relation to each skill, the abilities that a student would be expected to demonstrate at
each of the three levels progressed across the LLB course over a 3-4 year period, and at the end of the course (Table of Skills).
Each undergraduate core unit undertook to integrate one or more selected skills into their program. Cognisant of the evidence that
"the construct (the skill) and the context work best when tightly enmeshed"[8]
lecturers were encouraged to assimilate skills development and assessment with existing legal content.
- In the unit Trusts, it was considered that negotiation skills, a sub-set of communication skills in the table of core skills, could
be compatibly enmeshed with the legal content. An understanding of the variety of types of conflict within our society and the advantages
of non-litigious dispute resolution was complimentary to a study of trusts and an important addition to the first and second year
LLB curriculum. In accordance with the Table of Skills, the specific abilities that the skill of negotiation requires at the various
attainment levels are set out below.
- The first level (which is integrated within a first year core unit) requires students to demonstrate the ability to:
- identify the advantages and disadvantages of negotiation as a dispute resolution process;
- identify the principles of effective negotiation;
- negotiate effectively in a simple one to one negotiation; and
- reflect upon their own and others' performance.
- Upon completion of the second level of skills training (which is achieved through the subject Trusts) students should demonstrate
the ability to:
- identify the types of conflict best suited to resolution by negotiation;
- distinguish between positions and interests;
- prepare a negotiation plan; and
- negotiate effectively in a more complex negotiation exercise with the ability to reflect upon their own and others' performance.
- After completion of this stage, students may go on to achieve a higher level of skills development through a later core or elective
unit. At that third level, students are expected to be able to draw upon their previous instruction and translate and use their skills
in a variety of different circumstances without guidance. Ideally, students should also be able to adapt and be creative in the way
they approach the context and the particular skills that are used, although it is recognised that this may only be possible in the
context of a clinical placement program.
- At this higher level of development in the skill of negotiation, a student should demonstrate the ability to:
- distinguish between types of conflict and the interventions appropriate for resolution of each;
- distinguish between positions and interests and use appropriate verbal and non-verbal communication skills; and
- negotiate effectively in a highly complex negotiation exercise with the ability to reflect upon their own and others' performance.
- Upon completion of the course, a graduating student would be expected to demonstrate the ability to:
- identify the factors indicating negotiation as an appropriate dispute resolution process;
- identify and use the principles of effective negotiation; and
- prepare for the negotiation process effectively; and
- conduct and evaluate a negotiation session in a professional and responsive way.
- As legal educators we were faced with the challenge that existing assessment practices, like those of other legal education institutions,
had content as their focus, the result being that only a limited range of skills had been developed and that students' ability to
transfer skills from one context to another had not been very well developed.[9]
- The Law Discipline Network concluded from its surveys that "assessment of skills within law was primarily done indirectly through
the traditional methods of assessment: for example problem solving and intellectual skills are demonstrated through exams and/or
dissertations; research skills are part of the assessment through the dissertations".[10]
- There was a need to re-evaluate our assessment methods, keeping in mind the purposes of assessment and best assessment practices.
This re-evaluation process is taking place under the second Teaching and Learning Development Grant referred to above.
- The purposes of assessment are various[11]
with its main objectives being to enable certification or classification of students' achievements and to promote and enhance students'
learning.[12]
These main objectives were also those of the Faculty when determining that skills development was to be specifically assessed in
each core unit. Certification or classification was of particular relevance to the desired outcome of a " capability profile" for
each student.
- In relation to best assessment practices, it is generally recognised that good assessment is valid, reliable, and fit for its purpose.[13]
A valid assessment method is one which assesses what it purports to assess.[14]
The question can be posed "Does the assessed task actually assess what you want it to?"[15]
- Reliability requires an assessment method which is reproducible. If an assessment task were totally reliable, independent assessors
using the same criteria and marking scheme would come to the same result about a given piece of work. The Oxford Centre for Staff
and Learning Development conclude that "the connoisseur' approach to assessment (like a wine-taster or tea-blender of many years
experience, not able to describe exactly what they are looking for but 'knowing when they find it') is no longer acceptable.[16]
Consequently explicitness of assessment criteria is vital for both the students and the markers. Fitness for purpose is a multifaceted
concept that would include the task's authenticity and its manageability for class size. Authenticity relates to the extent to which
the assessment uses tasks as close as possible to those which are the goal of the program.[17]
- The project team has set itself the task of developing an assessment framework that will provide the theoretical basis for models
of best assessment practice for certain of the graduate capabilities including oral communication. The hypothesis is that it should
be possible to assure the quality of assessment methods for capability development by evaluating the efficacy of those tasks as against
the framework developed. At this stage of the project, the team has developed a draft framework which incorporates, amongst others,
the above criteria for best assessment practice. The project team intends to filter a range of assessment tasks through the framework
in order to identify the best practice for the targeted skill areas. As a result of these trials and evaluations the framework may
itself be modified for future use. It may also be that individual assessment tasks may require modification.
- The assessment framework in its draft form consists of structured questions that will assist the trial and evaluation process:
- Is it valid?
- Is it reliable?
- Does it help students to develop in the area being assessed?
- Is it manageable, in the sense that it is efficient and effective for both students and academics?
- Is the assessment as authentic as possible?
- The draft framework provides further details and questions under each of these criteria which will be referred to when applying the
draft framework to the Trusts assessment task.
- As Trusts is a second year subject in the LLB course, the skill of negotiation was required to be developed and assessed to the second
level in accordance with the Table of Skills. The specific abilities for level two have previously been set out. Importantly, at
this level students build upon the theoretical and practical foundations laid in level one, and may be provided with some additional
guidance of an advanced level of skills.
- In re-designing the unit to accommodate the new initiative from the first project, it was essential to create an authentic assessment
task. An authentic environment is sought at this stage to practice the skill, so that the student experience is linked to a real
world legal scenario. Conscious of the criticisms that the traditional law school curriculum is tilted towards preparing students
for 'legal combat' rather than the gentler arts of reconciliation and accommodation[18]
the teaching team decided to use a problem-solving mode for the exercise.
- Role-plays enable the exploration of communication skills and promote active learning in skills education. However, the economics
of legal education generally in Australia make individual role-play exercises a problematic and unaffordable method of summative
assessment. It was therefore decided to teach the interest-based approach to negotiation advocated in Getting to Yes[19]
and set a case study in the context of a family estate dispute. The aim was to require students to step outside of the appellate
judge role and appreciate the complexity of real life conflicts. Asking students to look for creative and integrative solutions on
behalf of a client would hopefully raise awareness of dispute resolution choices and how to assist others to develop real life solutions
as distinct from legal solutions to their problems.
- The case study assessment task was ultimately titled "Life Problem" and required students to prepare a written analysis of a given
problem together with a negotiation plan. Following submission of the plan, students were given an opportunity in tutorials to role-play
the exercise and compare their performance with their plan. The following examples are from information and instructions provided
to students through a number of sources including a study guide made available at the beginning of the semester and an on-line site
also available from the beginning of semester and updated from time to time.
|
Negotiation
“Life problem” Exercise 20%
You will be required to prepare a negotiation
plan (which may be done in teams of up to four (4) students) and conduct a
negotiation
based on a factual scenario to be provided. Your written assignment will be worth 20%
and will be due in week 5. In week 7
of the tutorial program you will participate in a negotiated role-play based
on the same factual scenario and attendance at that
tutorial is compulsory
for all internal students. Parts of
this exercise will take place during tutorials in weeks 2 and 7.
You will be also required to submit a
report reflecting on your negotiation plan to your tutor in your tutorial.
For external students the negotiation role-play
will take place during the attendance school and therefore attendance at the
attendance
school is compulsory. You
will be required to submit a report, reflecting on your negotiation plan to
your tutor at the end
of your tutorial at the attendance school.
Unit objectives (2) and (4) will be assessed by
the Life Problem Exercise.
|
- Another important aspect of unit re-design was to ensure that student expectations were managed and that students were explicitly
informed in relation to the changing objectives and teaching and learning practices in the unit.
- The objectives of the unit were reformulated to expressly include the ability to negotiate effectively. The teaching and learning
approaches in the study guide were amended to specifically alert students to the fact that skills theory and practice would be incorporated
at various stages in the lecture program. This necessitated compulsory attendance for some classes, which had not existed under the
previous regime, and given the number of externally enrolled students in the cohort, it was also necessary to specifically provide
for alternative assessment should attendance at skills sessions prove impossible.
- As the new teaching and learning approach required each skill to be developed through a cycle of instruction, practice, feedback and
assessment it was also necessary to explicitly define for students the opportunities for formative assessment. Good teaching practice
also seemed to require that students should be given a rational explanation for why the particular skill had been targeted in the
unit in addition to an explanation of what was expected in the particular task.
|
What is the relevance of this assignment?
The skills module in this course builds upon the
principled negotiation theory you studied in first year.
In the first lecture of this course you will look
at how to identify different types of conflict, how to determine which
disputes
are best suited to resolution by negotiation and how to prepare a
basic negotiation plan.
The Life Problem gives you an opportunity to
apply that theory in the context of a trust dispute. After handing in your
negotiation
plan in week 5 you will participate in a role-play in week 7
tutorials or the attendance school, to explore how well your plan
prepared
you and to further develop your negotiation skills.
The
Life Problem is NOT a research paper on negotiation theory or the substantive
law.
To do well in this assignment you will need to
apply the theory covered to the problem posed. If you have not completed your
first
year law studies at this university, you will need to make yourself
familiar with the theory of principled negotiation, which is
well explained
in the text: Fisher,R & Ury,W - Getting to Yes, Business Books Ltd, UK, 1991, which you will find in
the course reserve section of the law library.
Some past students’ comments on the Life Problem:
“It was interesting to deal with a real life
situation and to see how many factors, however small, can affect the
situation drastically”
“It allowed me to look at and deal with a problem
which required application of skills that would not otherwise have been
covered
in a straight law degree, especially given that negotiation is such
an important part of being a solicitor”
“The skills tute at the external school was
excellent. Part of my initial defensiveness against this exercise was that it
was
hard to see the benefit of the skills exercise when just listening to the
tapes.”
|
- The Life Problem instructed students to prepare an advice for one of the parties to the dispute (maximum 1500 words) including the
following:
- Identification of the conflict/s
- Consideration of negotiation as an appropriate resolution process
- A negotiation plan
- Students were provided with readings on conflict identification and option generation and were lectured specifically on conflict identification
and the matching of types of conflicts with dispute resolution processes. A lecture was also dedicated to revising the principled
negotiation theory taught at level one and demonstrating how to use that theory in the preparation of a negotiation plan.
- The assessment criteria were devised for each of the prescribed tasks with the majority of marks being allocated to the negotiation
plan itself. Marks were allocated for the application of the theory to the problem on the basis that a merely descriptive paper could
not satisfy the demonstrated abilities required at this level.
|
1.
Identification of types of conflict (6 marks)
Explanation of type/s of conflict identified:
- named and applied appropriately (up to 6 marks)
2.
Discussion of negotiation as an appropriate process (6 marks)
- Identification of conflicts best suited to
principled negotiation (up to 2)
- Identification of conflicts which might require
3rd party process (up to 2)
- A conclusion as to preferred option with
reference to appropriate considerations eg: ongoing relationship for family
members
(up to 2)
3.
Negotiation Plan - (8 marks)
Discussion of people problems that may arise (up
to 1.5)
Discussion of likely interests underlying
positions (up to 1.5)
Identification of possible options for mutual
gain (up to 1.5)
Identification of ways to use objective criteria
(up to 1.5)
BATNAs & WATNAs[20] (up to 2)
Detailed explanation of these criteria as they
applied to the problem was also provided.
|
|
|
- Upon return of their paper each student received an individual feedback sheet which specified the areas of discussion and application
which did not receive full marks along with comments from the examiner and a mark out of 20 for the exercise.
|
Life Problem Feedback Sheet
Trusts
Name/s:
You
could have scored a higher mark for section 1 if you:
q
Used Moore’s sphere to classify the types
of conflict
q
Identified more examples of types of
conflict
q
Applied the theory to the problem more and
explained how your classification of the types of conflict were justified
q
Addressed conflicts also involving other
parties, which may impact upon the negotiated outcome
You
could have scored a higher mark for section 2 if you:
q
Used Moore’s sphere to identify the most
appropriate process for each different type of conflict
q
Recognised that the interest and data
conflicts were best suited to negotiation
q
Recognised the possibility that a third
party mediator may ultimately be required to assist with the
value/relationship/structural
conflicts
q
Discussed the parties’ probable need for
an ongoing relationship
You
could have scored a higher mark for section 3 if you:
q
Followed the process set out in the
lecture on this topic
q
Discussed the people problems that may
arise
q
Analysed the parties underlying interests
q
Identified possible options for mutual
gain
q
Identified ways to use objective criteria
q
Identified both sides BATNA & WATNA[21]
Comments:
|
- The tutorial role-play exercise gave students an opportunity to practice their principled negotiation skills and trial their negotiation
plans in a "real life" context. They were each assigned a role randomly, and whilst they may have written their negotiation plan
from the perspective of the other negotiator, their preparation should have encompassed viewing the dispute from both sides making
the exercise a valuable way to explore the effectiveness of their plans.
- Students were given 25 minutes to negotiate and 10 minutes to record any agreement reached. They were then debriefed as a large group
in order to give formative feedback on their oral communication skills and to enable further exploration of the success of their
negotiation plans. All students were asked to consider to what extent their negotiation plans had predicted the positions and interests
of the parties, they were then asked to complete a reflection sheet to record the outcomes of that reflection process.
- The assessment framework used to evaluate the Trusts "Life Problem" assessment task is still in its draft form. This evaluation is
part of the project team's efforts to identify the best practice tasks for the targeted skill areas. Both the assessment framework
and/or the individual assessment task may require modification upon completion of this process. As previously discussed, the draft
framework is sourced from educational research world-wide and the key questions posed reflect the most fundamental issues on assessment
best practice.
- Does the Life Problem actually assess what it purports to assess? Can it be used to discover whether students have achieved the learning
outcomes identified for the unit studied and does it allow students to demonstrate those achievements?
- The Life Problem purports to assess a student's ability to:
* identify the types of conflicts which may arise in a given fact situation,
* assess the appropriateness of negotiation as a resolution process for the parties involved in those conflicts; and
* prepare a negotiation plan in accordance with the Fisher & Ury principles.
All of the available marks are allocated to the achievement of those three tasks.
- The identified learning outcomes for the negotiation module of this unit (from the Table of Skills) are that students should demonstrate
the ability to:
- identify the types of conflict best suited to resolution by negotiation;
- distinguish between positions and interests;
- prepare a negotiation plan; and
- negotiate effectively in a more complex negotiation exercise with the ability to reflect upon their own and others' performance.
- The Life Problem requires students to demonstrate the first three abilities and provides for direct feedback on their strengths and
weaknesses in relation to each task. The linked tutorial exercise then provides the opportunity for exploration and demonstration
of negotiation skills (although the assessment and feedback are purely formative) and reflection on the success or otherwise of their
performance.
- This exercise scores very highly in relation to this first criterion.
- Would the marking of the task give the same result no matter who did it?
The marking criteria applied to the written component of
this exercise appear objective, although it is acknowledged that this may not reduce the subjectivity associated with grading.[22]
To remedy this Rowntree[23]
recommends carefully constructed marking schemes, repeat marking of some assessment scripts so as to make sure an individual marker
maintains the same standards over time, and, where several markers are involved cross-marking to ensure consistency.
- As resources demand that more than one assessor is involved in marking this exercise, it is proposed that to avoid inconsistency an
experienced member of the teaching team will review a selection of students' work for the purpose of grading. Examples of each grade
will then be provided to each marker as a guide to the standard required to achieve each grade.
- The formative feedback to be given by tutors following the role-play is also problematic. A guide to appropriate feedback and what
to look for in giving feedback is provided to each tutor, however it is still possible that there is variation in the way the principles
are modelled by each. Whilst that assessment is purely formative in this exercise, it is an area of weakness that should be targeted
in the formulation of a best practice model.
- The Life Problem exercise is constructive in the sense that it builds upon the theoretical knowledge acquired in first year and offers
students an opportunity to apply that knowledge. The written exercise also incorporates the higher levels of Bloom's hierarchy[24]
by requiring students to classify conflict and then combine separate elements into a whole by developing a negotiation plan.
- The oral communication and reflection components of the exercise also encourage students to judge the effectiveness of their performance
to improve their learning opportunities. In those ways this exercise should promote student learning as it is delivered through an
appropriate mix of written analysis and active learning.
- Does the task build in opportunities for practice of the skill and for the provision of effective feedback and guidance to learners?
In its current form the written component of this exercise does not provide an opportunity for formative feedback in the sense that
students do not have an opportunity to practice identifying types of conflict from a factual scenario or to prepare a negotiation
plan. As a result they are also denied feedback on such an exercise before being assessed upon it.
- One way of addressing this deficiency may be to include the previous year's problem in the study guide and give students an opportunity
to identify the types of conflict and prepare a negotiation plan in groups in a tutorial or lecture. The results of that exercise
could then be peer assessed in light of an example of a good answer from the previous year's cohort. Such a modification would not
only provide opportunities for formative feedback and practice of the skill, it would also ensure that students were aware of and
familiar with the marking criteria to be applied so that there is a shared understanding between staff and students.[25]
- In determining the efficiency and economy of an assessment task Bone[26]
focuses on the problems caused by excessive questioning, reading, commenting and grading of students' work. Alternatively the AUTC
Project 2001 [27]
refers to Gibbs's suggested strategies for making assessment more manageable which includes the recommendation that marking criteria
be provided to students at the time an exercise is distributed along with opportunities for practice and formative feedback in order
to understand the criteria in use.
- On the Bone criteria, the summative aspects of this exercise appear to be manageable from the academic perspective. Although it is
a compulsory assignment for a cohort which averages about 450, students are encouraged to work in groups (a skill which is developed
in an earlier subject) to take advantage of the different perspectives that group work can bring to the analysis of a real-life problem.
Gibbs also highlights the benefits of group work. [28]
- On the AUTC criteria however this exercise again scores poorly for the reasons discussed above in the context of effective formative
feedback. It is submitted that the same modifications discussed above should also be useful in making the exercise more manageable
from the student perspective. By incorporating group work and peer assessment into this formative assessment, the task also becomes
more manageable for staff when dealing with large classes.
- The summative feedback sheet in so far as it contains generic responses to be marked where appropriate by the assessor, further reduces
time spent on identifying common errors or deficiencies. The sheet does provide for individual comments where necessary.
- Marcel and Wiseman[29]
comment that many client problems might be solved with more satisfying results at less expense and in less time if lawyers understood
what their clients really wanted and were able to respond to their clients' real needs. The Life Problem exercise is designed to
teach and assess negotiation skills within that real life context.
- The problem itself is adapted from an actual reported trusts case, in an attempt to ensure authenticity. Further, the tasks set are
those recommended as best teaching practice for the development of negotiation skills[30]
in a practical legal training program. Whilst it is acknowledged that the use of videos, clinical experience and observations of
negotiation sessions may be even more valuable vehicles for the delivery of skills modules, the ever-shrinking resources of most
law schools renders such methods "unmanageable" under the criteria already discussed.
- Graduate capability integration in the unit Trusts has introduced a new and challenging dimension to teaching and learning in the
unit. The qualitative evaluation process being undertaken through the second large grant is adding significant value to that initial
project.
- The assessment framework has proved to be a practical and useful tool in approaching the difficult task of assuring quality in one's
own assessment practice. As indicated, it has already led to proposals for change in the assessment methods of the case study assessment
task. Through this evaluation, aspects of best assessment practice for negotiation skills can now be incorporated into the development
of that skill at other levels throughout the course. To the extent that some of these practices are generic, they will also be transferable
to assessment methods in other units.
- The range of questions encourages the assessor to consider the student perspective as well as pedagogy and the increasingly significant
resources issue. The framework and the best practice assessment methods it identifies will provide valuable assistance to academics
designing new assessment tasks and methods, for academics engaged in reflective practice and for students seeking high achievement.
[1]
ALRC DP 62, August 1999.
[2]
Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice - A Review of the Civil Justice System Report No 89, AGPS Canberra 1999, para
2.21; American Bar Association, Legal Education and Professional Development - An Educational Continuum ABA Chicago 1992 (MacCrate
Report); C McInnis, S Marginson & A Morris, Australian Law Schools After the 1987 Pearce Report AGPS Canberra 1994.
[3]
EIP, DETYA, Employer Satisfaction with Graduate Skills: Research Report, Canberra 2000 at http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip99-7/eip99_7pdf.pdf See also NCVER Generic Skills for the New Economy: Review of Research, Australian National Training Authority SA 2001.
[4]
S.Vignaendra, Australian Law Graduates' Career Destinations, Centre for Legal Education Sydney 1998, 39.
[5]
See http://www.qut.edu.au/admin/mopp/C/C_01_03.html . This institutional statement of graduate capabilities was significantly influenced by the work of the Faculty of Law.
[6]
MacCrate Report, above n 3.
[7]
The Law Discipline Network, General Transferable Skills In The Law Curriculum at http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/ldn/index.html or http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/lawdn/survey.htm; See generally: UK Centre for Legal Education website and the reports there listed at http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/ esp Benchmark Standards for Law Degree in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/law.pdf ; Graduate Standards in Law 1997 at http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/graduate/index.html and J.Bell and J.Johnstone, "General Transferable Skills in the Law Curriculum" at http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/ldn/
[8]
P James, A Blueprint for Skills Assessment in Higher Education (2000) 25 (4) Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 353,
355.
[9]
Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, "Relevance and Transferability", Principles of Assessment, Oxford Brookes University
at http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/principles.html
[10]
The Law Discipline Network, above n 8, 9.
[11]
Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, "Purposes of Assessment", Oxford Brookes University at http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/principles.html
[12]
AUTC Project 2001, "Assessment Principles", Teaching and Assessment in Large Classes, 6 at http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/largeclasses/
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, above n 12.
[16]
Ibid.
[17]
AUTC Project, above n 13, 6.
[18]
Derek C Bok, "A Flawed System of Law Practice and Training" (1983) 33 Journal of Legal Education 70.
[19]
R Fisher & W Ury, Getting to Yes, Business Books Ltd UK 1991.
[20]
In principled negotiation theory, a negotiator's BATNA is their Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement, whilst their WATNA is
their Worst Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement, see: Fisher,R & Ury,W, Getting to Yes, Business Books Ltd, UK, 1991.
[21]
Ibid.
[22]
Carlson and Ors, "Implementing Criterion-Referenced Assessment Within a Multi-Discliplinary University Department", 19(2000) Higher
Education Research and Development 103, 110.
[23]
D Rowntree, Assessing Students, Harper & Rowe London 1977.
[24]
B Bloom, A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, 2nd ed McKay New York 1965.
[25]
Carlson and Ors, above n 23, 109-110.
[26]
A Bone, Ensuring Successful Assessment, National Centre for Legal Education University of Warwick 1999, 34 adapting Andersen L,
Nightingale P, Boud D and Margin D (eds) Strategies for Assessing Students - A Guide to setting, marking, grading and giving feedback
on assignments, tests and examinations, Standing Conference on Educational Development, paper 78 SEDA Birmingham 1993.
[27]
AUTC Project, above n 13, 7-8.
[28]
G Gibbs, Assessing More Students, Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council London 1992.
[29]
K Marcel and P Wiseman, "Why we teach students to Mediate" Mo J Dispute Resolution 77 as cited in S Carr-Greg, "Alternative Dispute
Resolution in Practical Legal Training - Too Little Too Late?" 10(1) Journal of Professional Legal Education 23, 25.
[30]
S Carr-Greg, above n 30, 37.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurdochUeJlLaw/2002/25.html
