Legal Education Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Legal Education Review |
|
A CASE STUDY OF THE “OFFICES” PROJECT
(TEACHER-LESS, COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS) AT GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY: IMPLEMENTING
EDUCATIONAL THEORY
B DICK, L GODDEN, K HEALY AND MJ LE BRUN WITH G
AIRO-FARULLA AND D LAMB*
Although articles which discuss new ways to teach and assess students in law
programmes are not uncommon in law journals in Australia
today, few papers
attempt to describe how innovations can be introduced into law curricula.
Reputable journals in law or education
simply, and rightly, refuse to publish
work which lacks a sound educational basis. To achieve an appropriate balance of
description,
prescription, and theory in academic writing can be difficult.
Nevertheless, some law teachers are eager to hear about the implementation
of
new methods of teaching as they consider introducing similar reforms into their
courses by building upon the knowledge and expertise
— as well as the
mistakes — of the original designers.
In this article, we discuss
recent developments in the use of teacher-less, cooperative learning groups by
focusing on the “Offices”
project, which was introduced and
developed by Le Brun into the Griffith University Law curricula in 1992. A
framework, outlining
the educational theory and rationale that provided the
foundation for the conception and ongoing design of Offices, is presented.
We,
then, review the use of Offices in order to provide some practical guidance to
individuals who wish to introduce similar learning
opportunities.1
THE LEARNING/TEACHING PROGRAM AT GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
All law students at Griffith University Law School are
enrolled in integrated degree programs, a concept pioneered by Sir Zelman Cowen.
The planners of the Law School thought that students would gain a better
education if the insights of two disciplines could be used
for the benefit of
each.2 To complement this novel approach, an
educational program was developed which incorporates current educational theory
and practice.3 The traditional lecture/tutorial
structure was abandoned and an holistic, structured, and thematic approach to
education introduced.
In order to address the needs of different learners as
well as remedy some of the shortcomings in professional education identified
by
writers such as Ramsden, Schon, and Boud,4 we
introduced a range of educational experiences in which student learning was the
focus. In addition to large and small group classes,5
each law student is required to participate in
teacher-less,6 cooperative learning groups, called
“Offices”.7 The groups are
“teacher-less” in the sense that teachers do not attend the Office
meetings; however, they do provide
significant guidance for the learning which
takes place in the groups. The teachers design the overall direction of Offices
to ensure
that the learning environment of the Offices complements other
sections of the law course and they act as overseers of the program.
Offices
differ from both the more formal tutorial and from small group teaching where
peer tutoring takes place.8 Since Offices were
developed as an integral part of the overall Griffith Law School undergraduate
curriculum,9 our discussion and observations about the
function and success of Offices should be seen against the entire Griffith
curriculum as
a “backdrop”.
The Office Concept
The Office concept combines, and further develops,
ideas introduced at the University of Adelaide and the City University of New
York.
In Adelaide Law School, “syndicates” have operated for
several years.10 They were introduced in Contract Law
due, in part, to their success in Constitutional Law. Students enrolled in
contract meet in
teacher-less groups once each fortnight to discuss contract
work. Students then answer questions based on leaderless groupwork in
contract
law seminars. Assessment for the groups is fifteen percent of the total,
although this is redeemable on the final examination.
By way of contrast, the
format of syndicates has varied over the seven years that they have operated in
Constitutional Law. Currently,
syndicates of students decide when, where, and
how frequently such classes will take place. The group work forms the basis for
seminar
and tutorial preparation. Assessment of syndicate activity is related to
the marks allocated for seminar and tutorial performance
for the group.
Individual students must have “group certification” before they can
claim the group mark.
The educational experience at the City University
(CUNY) is quite different. About 20 CUNY students and one teacher form one
“house”.
Each house is organised as a law firm so that cognitive
content is married in an experiential learning environment with clinical
and
lawyering skills as part of an overall experiential approach to legal
education.11
The Office program at Griffith
University is designed to provide students with a structured opportunity to
develop the skills associated
with the graduate professional in law in a
teacher-less, relaxed class environment. Although less ambitious — and
less costly
— than the CUNY Houses, and more group process and skills
oriented than Adelaide’s syndicates, teacher-less cooperative
learning
groups in the form of Offices are proving to be a realistic and practicable
addition to the more traditional learning experiences
offered to law students in
Australia to date.
THE RATIONALE FOR OFFICES
Offices reflect the educational philosophy at
Griffith. They provide a forum in which students can situate, and therefore,
deepen,
their learning at the same time that they begin to develop the various
skills which are commonly associated with the graduate professional
in
law.12 Offices are designed to give students the time
and opportunity to reflect on their work and that of their peers.
In its
initial conception, the Offices project arose as a response to identified
deficiencies in the more traditional methods of teaching
and learning law. The
aims and objectives of the project incorporate some elements of current
educational theory on student learning
and, in particular, the process whereby
the undergraduate matures into the graduate professional which begins in
Offices. The following
section provides further detail on the rationale for the
project and the goals of Offices. Obviously, given the formative nature
of the
project and the continual process of evaluation and redesign that is a feature
of the program, many goals have yet to be fully
achieved.13
REFLECTION IN ACTION: OVERVIEW OF YEARS ONE AND TWO
Educationists such as
Schon14 have identified gaps that exist in professional
education. Although many law teachers arm their students with considerable
subject
matter information and expertise, many students who are well-versed in
the rules of law are ill-equipped to undertake work in the
manner of
professionals in their respective disciplines. Instead of encouraging the
development of independent, self-motivated, creative,
and analytical thinkers
who are able to work with others, it appears that some law teachers in Australia
continue to employ outdated
and simplistic models of education. Worse, some law
courses create a competitive climate of student-teacher dependency, which is
atypical of professional work.15 Moreover, by
conceiving of the teaching of law as the transmission of knowledge which itself
is classified into tight legal categories,
students are ill-equipped to operate
in the “indeterminate zones” of practice, which, according to Schon,
are common
in the professional world.
To illustrate further: rather than
consider how their teaching affects student learning, and rather than use
assessment as a learning/teaching
strategy to measure student understanding of,
and ability to work within, a discipline, many law teachers in Australia use
three
hour, final year examinations to measure the increase in the quantum of
information that a student can demonstrate. Yet upon graduation,
the very same
students are expected to conduct themselves in the manner of the professional,
whose success depends upon abilities
to assess themselves and their peers and
work independently and cooperatively with others.
Offices provide one
example of what we believe is an appropriate structure in which to begin the
development of professional skills,
attitudes, and values. They offer a relaxed
forum in which students have the opportunity, at least in theory, to reflect
more critically
and self-consciously on the law and their work as law students.
We acknowledge that not all students are prepared to immediately
begin this
process of critical assessment and professional development. Therefore, the
emphasis is upon the gradual inculcation of
these faculties over the entire
Offices program, which currently extends over the first three years of the
Griffith Law course.
The abilities to monitor and assess the work of oneself
and one’s peers are important for law students. The use of the process
of
reflection itself, which is central to self and peer assessment and monitoring,
emphasises to students the centrality of reflection
as both a process for
meaningful learning and as a means for self and peer professional growth.
The development of these skills of reflection and self and peer assessment
takes time and perseverance,16 which is why these
skills are introduced in the first year of study in the form of student self and
peer monitoring.
In year one, in the course Law and Legal Obligations,
students meet weekly in Offices. Students draft rules and principles which
govern
their group at the same time as they learn about social contract theory.
Students also begin to develop the skills of cooperation,
self and peer
assessment, and oral and written communication. In addition, we have found
Offices provide an ideal opportunity for
first year students to meet and make
friends, whom they may consult in later years in their professional work. Some
Offices even
double as study groups. Moreover, the integration of knowledge of
law and another discipline, which is integral to the Griffith degree,
begins in
the Offices as students discuss readings of interdisciplinary relevance.
In
year two, Offices act as a bridge between the courses, Constitutional and
Administrative Law, on the one hand, and Associations
and Trusts, on the other,
and between years one and two of the degree program. In weekly Office meetings
in the second year, students
further develop their communication skills and
abilities to work in groups as they are expected to complete joint projects. The
client
interviewing and drafting skills introduced in year one are refined, and
negotiation skills introduced. Student understanding of
group processes, which
begins in the first year, is supplemented in year two by role plays which
require students to work effectively
with their Office team as well with other
individuals who act in roles as “clients” and other Office
participants.
RULES AND CONSTITUTIONS: DEVELOPING, REVIEWING AND REFINING
In order to improve student learning, Office work is
“saturated” with, and enveloped by, the substantive law areas of
the
curriculum. In this way the dichotomy between subject knowledge and skills
development, which is reinforced by separating doctrine
and skills, is
minimised. By creating a clear link between the theoretical and philosophical
discussion of rules and constitutions,
and’ the practical demonstration of
these concepts within Offices in years one and two, students should be able to
understand
more fully the law and its dynamic.
Central to the idea of
Offices is the concept of rules and the process of review and refinement. In
year one, the creation, function,
and amendment of rules link large group
classes and Offices. The concept of rules, and the function of law and rule
making in society
and in Contract Law are discussed in large groups while in
Offices the students formulate a set of rules and principles to govern
and guide
their work. After reading and discussing articles in law and literature on
rules, social contract theory, and the rule
of law, each Office group presents
their rules to the large group class and describes how their Office considered
and drafted rules
to govern their work for the academic
year.17
On three separate occasions after the
initial formulation of the rules, considerable time is set aside for students to
review and
evaluate formally the operation of their rules, the dynamics of their
group, and the individual contribution to Offices. Reviews
occur at the
beginning of the second semester; again in August when staff visit each Office
to speak with the students about the
general operation of their individual
groups; and in the final Office session for the academic year. This process of
review, evaluation,
and re-evaluation is designed so that students are in a
position to appreciate the importance of reflection and evaluation in education
and in professional life.
Evaluations of Offices have indicated that many
students18 felt that the function of Offices rules was
not made sufficiently clear to students and consequently the extent which groups
referred
to rules as a guide to cooperative learning was reduced.
In the
second year program, the link between substantive law and Office work begins
when students are introduced in large group classes
in Constitutional and
Administrative Law to the role and functions of a constitution and then asked to
draft a constitution for the
operation of their individual Offices. This task
builds upon the rule making experience in year one Offices and reflects the
overall
design of the Griffith curriculum in which concepts, themes, and
theories introduced in the first year are developed and refined
in subsequent
years.19 As in the first year of study, second year
students review their Office work periodically, generally after completing
particular
segments of work in which they consider what they have gained from
their group tasks. In the final session of Offices, students complete
a
structured evaluation of the operation of the group, consider the effectiveness
of Office constitutions overall, and reflect on
their personal development as a
member of an Office.
This process of review in years one and two is
educationally significant for a number of reasons. It mirrors on a small scale
the
process and dynamics of law and law reform within the wider community. It
provides a fruitful basis for discussing issues such as
the role and function of
rules and principles in guiding and governing human conduct, the notion of
obligation, and the nature of
law. In Offices, students have an opportunity to
consider, and observe “in action”, the operation of a “mini
legal
system” against the background of substantive law.
As the
process of review is critical to achieving many of the aims of Offices, there
has been considerable refinement in the design
of the program to make the aims
and objectives more explicit to the students. Evaluations of the early phase of
Offices revealed
that some students did not appreciate the significance of the
review function of Offices. Therefore, we have experimented with a
number of
methods of review including the use of videotaping, to focus student attention
upon this important aspect of Offices.
Moreover, while the theme of rule
making provides a coherent structure and an integrating link to areas of
substantive law, Offices
allow students an opportunity to develop communication
and interpersonal skills as they begin to reflect more systematically on how
they work as members of an educationally oriented group which is not teacher
dominated.
COMMUNICATION AND INTERPERSONAL SKILLS, GROUP DYNAMICS, AND RELATIONSHIP BUILDING
In the past many law teachers have placed
considerable emphasis on developing written communication skills in law, some
would argue
to the neglect of others.20 Many legal
educators state that the development of skills such as communication and group
interaction is antithetical to the notion
of university education. This claim,
however, ignores how certain skills can be used to enrich, and to assess,
student learning.
The progress of students who have learned to communicate
effectively can be more easily measured if opportunities for class participation
are valued and assessed. Furthermore, the assessment of participation appears to
motivate some students to work more consistently
throughout a term of study,
which has considerable educational benefits. It is possible, for example, that
deep approaches to learning
in law21 may require a
period of time in which students can sit back, “digest”, and reflect
on their learning. Moreover, educational
theorists, at least in North America,
suggest that students need to be given an opportunity to speak in class at a
very early point
in law school in order to build the confidence essential for
effective oral presentation.22
The importance and
development of oral skills in Offices is reinforced when students in first year
discuss the work of their Offices
in front of the large group class. Students,
thus, can build on the confidence that they had gained in Offices in preparation
for
their large group class presentations. In evaluations of Offices students
consistently emphasised the value of being given the opportunity
to speak in
front of the large group class.
Since students meet regularly without a
member of the teaching staff present, Offices provide, at least in theory, a
less threatening
environment for students to talk with one another about law
than a more traditional law class. While the absence of teaching staff
potentially allows students to work cooperatively to achieve the set task the
process is not always accomplished without conflict.
Evaluations of the project
have revealed that particularly in the first year of the project several groups
encountered significant
interpersonal conflict. The major difficulty identified
by students was that some group members sought to dominate group discussions
which limited the extent of cooperation within the group.23
The extent of interpersonal conflict within Office groups diminished
in the second year of the project which may reflect more adequate
preparation of
the groups in that year. Preparation of the groups included some relationship
building exercises, greater attention
on the function of Office rules and fuller
explanations of the role of Offices in developing cooperative learning and
communication
skills. It could also be suggested that experience in dealing with
interpersonal conflict in order that a group can achieve a set
task is a
valuable part of a student’s progression toward professional attitudes and
values.
Offices also foster the development of friendships, and help
students to “network” and develop a peer support system.
These
functions of Offices are most pertinent to first year students where a majority
of students (94%) indicated that Offices were
useful in getting to know other
students. They also give students a chance to learn to work in groups as part of
the process of maturation
of the undergraduate to the professional. Considerable
assistance in developing these areas of group dynamics was provided in 1993
by a
consultant organisational psychologist.
THE ROLE OF THE ORGANISATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
An organisational
psychologist24 or similar resource
person25 can assist with the establishment and
development of programs such as Offices in three ways: by helping to create an
effective group
learning environment; by assisting the members of the small
groups to work together more effectively; and, by setting up processes
for
research and ongoing improvement.
A simple way to encourage learning is to
adopt adult learning programs such as those described by such writers as
Knowles26 and Brookfield.27
Such strategies, some of which have been incorporated in the design of the
Office project, enable students to take responsibility
for the type of work that
will be expected of them as legal professionals. For example, one of the key
features of the adult learning
approach is the use of learning groups, where
students provide mutual support and help one another learn. Organisational
psychologists
can assist teachers of law in implementing adult learning
principles and identifying practical activities which help to integrate
understanding and skills.
The way in which a group functions has an impact
on its productivity, learning, and enjoyment; organisational psychologists can
suggest
ways in which groups can examine and improve their own functioning. Much
of the success of such group work depends on project design
and implementation,
particularly because group effectiveness is increased if the groups go through
processes in which they build
relationships, agree on how they will work
together, and define collective goals.28
Group work
also offers students the chance to improve their social and communication
skills, which they will need if they wish to
be effective practitioners.
Experience alone may prove insufficient, so that explicit skills development is
required. Organisational
psychologists can help law teachers identify relevant
literature that includes some of the more practical activities on such topics
as
assertion,29 effective
listening30 and conflict
resolution.31
Although general information on group
processes and functioning can shed light on possible areas of improvement in
group work such
as that undertaken in Offices, designers of educational programs
may also need to gain insight into “local
issues”32 — that of the actual, day to day
functioning of the Offices. Through the use of action research
methods,33 organisational psychologists were able to
ask the students participating in the Office project to define in their own
terms what is
effective and what needs improvement. Moreover, involving students
in the actual evaluation of Offices is consistent with the philosophy
of
encouraging professionalism and critical thinking. Clear messages about the role
of students in helping make Offices work are
given. These messages themselves
can improve student commitment to the Offices because students feel that they
“own”
the project.34
THE DAY TO DAY FUNCTIONING OF OFFICES
In the preceding sections we explored the theoretical framework for Offices and outlined the broad aims which guide the project. We now turn to an examination of the day to day functioning of Offices which seeks to realise these aims at the practical level. This examination indicates that theory and practice do not always mesh. Further we emphasise the need to constantly review the operation of the teaching/ learning situation to promote a closer fit between theory and practice.
The Structure of “Offices”
Group Size
As educational research
emphasises,35 students learn effectively, if not best,
in small groups. Therefore we endeavoured to keep Office groups as small as
possible. Unfortunately,
due to timetable and room constraints, between
eight-ten students formed each Office at the commencement of the academic year
in
1993. As numbers declined slightly over the academic year, the average size
was six-seven people.36 From our limited experience, it
appears that groups became dysfunctional when the number of participants dropped
below four, possibly
due to the demands of the workload on the group and the
pressure of having to report to the large group.
Group Allocation
Students were allocated to Offices on the basis of their integrated degree only, without regard to age, gender, undergraduate/ post graduate entry, etc., given the difficulties of class schedules. Perhaps not surprisingly, interpersonal conflict amongst some Office members arose in a few groups as we have previously indicated. To further illustrate, we discovered through conversations and questionnaires that some older, usually male, students, who often contributed little to their groups, attempted to dominate some groups. Nevertheless given the philosophy underpinning the Offices, students were encouraged to work through their difficulties within the confines of the group structure, for example, by recourse to the rules that they had formulated for the operation of their Offices. In only one instance did a member of staff become directly involved in a dispute about workload and responsibility for Office work.37
Office Work
While the rule making and communication/group
dynamics aspects of professional development provide a constant theme for the
entire
Office program, work for specific weeks is designed to complement the
topics covered in large and small group classes. The type of
tasks assigned for
student attention range from reading and discussing articles to playing roles
and interviewing “clients”.
In the first year course, in most
weeks students read and discuss articles which are selected to help them
integrate material from
law with the other discipline in which they are
enrolled. The materials give students a knowledge base from which to develop
skills
which form part of the Office program. It emerged from the questionnaires
and convergent interviews that some students adopted a
“divide and
conquer” approach to Office work. When a “divide and conquer”
approach is used only one individual
within the group reads the article and
answers the questions set for that week, often with minimal input from other
students in the
group. In effect this defeats the cooperative learning function
of Offices so teaching staff now endeavour to design tasks which
require
participation from the entire group.
In year one students also complete a
basic introduction to the use of computers. As a result of timetable
constraints, this section
of the course was scheduled during Office hours.
Consequently in 1993 up to four Offices groups were involved in the training
course
for a three week period, which significantly disrupted the flow of the
Office work and caused considerable administrative problems.
In 1994 computer
classes will be scheduled outside Office hours. In semester one of the second
year, students undertook a range of
activities including interviewing and
advising student “clients”, both orally and in writing, in a role
play setting.
These Office activities centred around partnership and trusts. The
second semester program in year two was markedly different. Offices
performed
different tasks and members took on various roles as part of a joint venture
hypothetical which was designed to facilitate
integration between law and the
other disciplines. Groups created various organisations (eg a joint venture, a
public interest group,
a regulatory agency), set in train government
decision-making processes (including written applications, public hearings, and
informal
negotiations), made decisions and offered reasons for their
determinations, and then assessed the validity of those
decisions.38
Meeting Times
Students meet in Offices once a week in both year one and year two for fifty minutes immediately prior to their final large group class for the week. This scheduling gives all students the same amount of time within which to prepare their oral and written reports.39 One student from each Office or degree stream is required to present a report to the large group during most weeks in year one.40 This “report back” gives the teaching staff some insight into the level of work students undertake in Offices; it also provides students with the chance to develop oral communication skills in the context of a large group. In formal evaluations of Office reports, students consistently state that these “reports back” are valuable to the speaker, although many of the students in the large group appear disengaged, particularly if the topic is of marginal interest to them or if the report is dull. In 1994 we will try to engage students in the presentations through a process of peer feedback.41
Assessment
The issue of the formal assessment of Offices remains
contentious because Offices have been established to encourage students to take
responsibility for their learning and that of their peers. Since no teaching
staff meet regularly with the Office members,42
considerable creativity from the staff was demanded in the design of assessment.
In an ideal situation, one might have thought that
students would be happy to
participate actively in Offices because of the intrinsic value of learning in a
teacherless environment.43 However, surveys of student
opinion on Offices indicate that students tend to neglect Office work in favour
of any assignments and
tasks which are assessed. Since many students value what
is assessed, and since the Office program is set in the context of other
continuous assessment tasks, we decided to measure Office work formally in
several ways to encourage students to devote energy to
Offices, even though
students do receive feedback from a number of other sources.
In year one,
members of teaching staff award grades to individuals in the Office for reports
to the large group classes.44 In addition, each Office
is expected to submit a brief written response to the assigned task, such as
answers to questions or a summary
of points discussed. These papers, which are
handed back to the Offices with some notes from the teacher, may be profitably
used
by the students for final examination revision because each student must
attempt a question on Office work in the final
examination.45
In second year, a number of
different assessment techniques were used. In most weeks Offices were required
to hand in written work
on a weekly or fortnightly basis, depending on the
complexity of the task. This work was often reviewed by staff and returned with
some general comments.46 In addition in first semester,
videos were made of client interview and advice session role plays. These videos
were subsequently
reviewed by the Office as a means for students to refine
further their self and peer assessment techniques.47
The institution of so formal an assessment scheme may appear
surprising, in light of the aims of Offices. This judgment must be balanced,
however, by the role that self and peer monitoring and assessment play in the
overall Griffith curriculum. For example, self and
peer monitoring is
highlighted in large and small group work in the first year so that students are
introduced to the practice early
in their law school
experience.48 In addition, considerable effort is
directed toward establishing a climate for learning49
so that students will feel comfortable in monitoring their own progress and in
commenting upon the work of their peers. These skills
are developed further in
the second year Offices. Students have the chance to assess their own work in
several ways, for example,
by reviewing video tapes of their client interviews.
In 1994 we plan to broaden our informal assessment practices by inviting
legal practitioners, who have particular interests in the
degree programs
offered at Griffith Law School, to act as mentors/consultants to Office groups.
These practising lawyers will act
as role models for students and they will
provide feedback to staff on the operation of Offices. We expect that their
potential contribution
to the future development of the Offices project will be
considerable. In order that the maximum benefit be gained from the involvement
of legal practitioners it is essential that all mentors become fully consonant
with the aims of the project. Accordingly it is envisaged
that all mentors will
be provided with information as to the nature of their role and the most
appropriate means of giving feedback
to the students and teachers. Legal
practitioners are well-placed to provide feedback particularly in such areas as
student performance
in the second year client interviewing videos.
Long
range yet flexible administration will also be implemented to cope with the
“contingencies” that may arise. Given
the nature of legal practice
such contingencies could include the unavailability of some mentors at short
notice.
Attendance as Part of an Assessment Strategy
In order to emphasise the importance of Offices in
the Griffith curriculum, we require all students in years one and two to attend
a minimum number of Offices as part of formal assessment. Students in year one
must attend a minimum of fifteen Offices over the
teaching year to be eligible
to sit the final examination. In addition, students receive an attendance grade
on a sliding scale of
up to five percent of the grade for the year, depending
upon the number of Offices attended. Students in year two are ineligible
to sit
the final examination unless they attend at least seventy five percent of the
Offices. No grades are awarded for attendance,
however.
As might be expected
in teacherless groups, the record of attendance is kept by members of the Office
and submitted to the teaching
staff at the conclusion of the course. The keeping
of the attendance roll has generated conflict within a few of the groups and has
raised some ethical issues. We are currently considering ways to deal with
unexpected problems such as these in the future.50
Evaluation
As part of good educational practice, and as part of the quality control demands, student performance in Offices is monitored and the operation of the Office program evaluated, which is crucial given the innovative nature of Offices as a method of learning/teaching law. Evaluations of Offices were held formally and informally in 1992 and again in 1993. However, in 1993, a formal evaluation of the project was conducted by a series of convergent interviews, which were carried out by the consultant psychologist to the project as part of the CAUT grant.
Data Collection and Interpretation
On the basis of the recommendations of the project
consultant psychologists , we chose a convergent interviewing
technique51 as a major method for data collection and
analysis because it allows a diversity of data to be collected within a
relatively short
time and because the data come from the informants themselves,
not from the questions raised by the interviewer/researcher. The technique
also
includes built-in checks on the quality of data, which is achieved by using
information from early interviews to devise more
precise questions for later
interviews.
In convergent interviewing, the selection of the sample is
important to obtain quality information. In this project, 30 students were
interviewed, 15 from each year. To ensure that no important information was
overlooked, student interviewees (informants) were chosen
to maximise diversity
of opinion about Offices on the basis of course enrolment, sex, age, and Office
group. The sample was compiled
by the teachers in the course. Individuals who
had expressed considerably different opinions about Offices were also
interviewed.
The interviewers/researchers consisted of two members of the
research team not involved as teaching staff in the Office program and
five
psychology postgraduates who were particularly familiar with the convergent
interviewing method.
An important feature of the convergent interviewing
model involves the comparison between different interview results. In the breaks
between the individual interviews, the interviewers/researchers consulted notes
to ascertain when two or more informants agreed or
disagreed about an issue.
This process served two purposes: it allowed issues to be identified as having
high priority ie where they
were mentioned by the students interviewed; and it
guided the interviewer in devising more probing questions for later interviews.
Probe questions were developed to explain any disagreement and to test any
agreement by finding exceptions. The depth of the information
provided by the
students, therefore, increased from interview to interview. Probe questions were
asked only at the end of each interview
so that each informant had the same
opportunity to define issues without further influence from previous interviews.
Each interview began with the very broad, open-ended question on the
subject, “Tell me about Offices...” Interviewers/
researchers
encouraged informants to talk by giving them considerable attention and by the
use of positive verbal and non-verbal
signals. A typical interview was completed
in one hour.
The outcome of the convergent interviews was a set of issues
and ideas which arose from the student informant with almost no direction
given
from the interviewer/researcher. This information was then provided to the
teachers directly involved in the Office project
in such a way that the
anonymity of individual informants was preserved. The data collected provides
considerable insight into how
the law students regard the Office programme. It
was this information, in combination with the experience of two years of the
operation
of Offices and the results from student questionnaires, that has
provided a most effective foundation for our general review of the
Offices
project.
RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED
The Office program has developed considerably since
its inception into the Griffith Law curriculum in 1992, no doubt due to the
enthusiasm
of the staff and many students who were willing to contribute to the
development of their education, and the grant which was awarded
in 1993.
Nevertheless, we are aware that we must give considerable thought to future
developments as we begin to learn from our experiments
with teacher-less groups
in legal education.
Below we list some of the lessons which we have learned
in the past two years in implementing Offices, which may be of assistance
to
individuals who wish to introduce a similar approach to learning.
The Initial Phase: Design
ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK
EVALUATION
PROSPECTS
The Offices project in years one and two will be
revised in light of the information that we have received formally and
informally
from first and second year students in questionnaires and convergent
interviews.
In the first year, greater attention will be given to
“relationship building” exercises, to improving student
understanding
of the role and function of Offices vis-a-vis contract law and
social contract theory, to disseminating more structured information
about group
processes and dynamics, and to designing activities to help students improve
their abilities to work as members of a
team and to engage in self and peer
monitoring and assessment. In addition, the mentoring/ consultancy aspect of the
project will
be introduced in 1994.
In year two, there will be greater
emphasis on improving feedback to the Offices. This may involve more frequent
use of videos and
the further development of inter-group activities which
require Offices to provide feedback to each other. We will also devote greater
attention to designing tasks which require group co-operation and which cannot
be completed by one individual, so that the students
learn to work effectively
as a team. In effect this should provide for a more structured process of self
and peer assessment.
The Office project will be extended to the third year
curriculum, which will be offered for the first time in
1994.56 The program will be designed to integrate the
study of the several law subjects studied that year, (Property, Torts, and
Revenue
Law) with each other, and with the students’ other disciplines.
New skills elements which will be introduced include crosscultural
communication
skills and alternative dispute resolution. The use of role plays will be further
developed. Office members may act
as “clients” in conveyancing,
taxation, and tort matters.
CONCLUSION
Offices, as teacherless, cooperative learning
groups, are an initiative which incorporates current educational theory into the
actual
practice of teaching law. They fulfill a number of aims within the
holistic, structured, thematic, and interdisciplinary approach
to legal
education that is integral to the Griffith curriculum. The particular strengths
of the project lie in the opportunities
for students to begin the transition
from the undergraduate to the graduate professional, to learn the skills of self
and peer monitoring
and assessment, to be involved and share responsibility as a
group member, to extend their understanding of the process of rule making
in a
practical context, to develop as communicators, and to begin the process toward
independent, self motivated learning —
all within the framework of
substantive areas of law.
The Office program has grown in ways not envisaged
at the time of its introduction in 1992. The nature of the expansion indicates
the potential of Offices to incorporate many, diverse aims and to develop as an
innovative form of teaching/ learning. Offices remain
at a formative stage.
Information that we have received from the various evaluations of the project
will form the basis for continual
modification and refinement, particularly as
Offices are to be introduced into the third year course. Such review is
necessary to
ensure that Offices continue to meet the challenge of providing a
forum for cooperative, teacherless learning.
* Lecturer, Psychology, University of Queensland; Lecturer in Law, Griffith University; Research Assistant, University of Queensland; Senior Lecturer in Law, Griffith University; Lecturer in Law, Griffith University; Research Assistant, Griffith University, respectively.
We would like to thank Charles Sampford, Kevin Nicholson and Rosemary Owens for their assistance. We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to students in the Griffith Law School who have been more than helpful with their comments and observations about the Offices project.
This project was funded, in part, by a 1993 National Teaching
Development Grant from the Committee for the Advancement of
University Teaching,
and awarded on the basis of research conducted by M Le Brun as described in a
joint grant application with Charles
Sampford.
© 1993. (1993) 4
Legal Educ Rev 273.
1 For a fuller picture of the Offices project see B Dick L Godden K Healy & M Le Brun, The Use of Action Research in Developing Curricula in Law: Convergent Interviews and the “Offices” Project (forthcoming); L Godden & M Le Brun, Transforming the Undergraduate into the Graduate: Resource Tools for Introducing Teacher-Less Group Work in Law (forthcoming); and L Godden D Lamb & M Le Brun, The “Offices” Project at Griffith University Law School and the Use of Video in Evaluating Teaching Initiatives (forthcoming).
2 Information on the initial degree structure is contained in Appendix One: The Griffith Law Curriculum (1992) 1 Griffith Law Rev viii. Further information on the current integrated degree programme can be obtained from the Law School, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
3 Elements of a humanistic perspective were adopted. For a discussion of humanistic approaches see W Gelhorn, Humanistic Perspective: A Critique (1982) 32 J Legal Educ 99; G Bellow, The Limits of Humanistic Law Teaching (1978) 53 New York U Law Rev 644.
4 Some of the works which influenced the development and refinement of the Griffith curriculum include: P Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, (London: Routledge, 1992); D A Schon, Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1987); D Boud, Assessment and the Promotion of Academic Values (1990) 15 Studies in Higher Education no 1 101. See also Boud’s other work on self and peer assessment.
5 We refer to classes as “large” and “small” rather than “lecture” and “tutorial” because we employ a wide range of teaching methods, of which lecturing is one. Since learning is promoted when students are actively engaged in their study, interactive teaching methods are widely used.
6 In the past we referred to these groups as leaderless rather than “student- led” or “syndicates”, because, in some instances, there is no clear student leader and because “syndicates” has too managerial and bureaucratic a ring. Other characterisations of such groups have included self steering seminars: see JD Andrews & DA Dietz, The Self Steering Seminar (1982) 53 J Higher Educ 552. On the basis of our evaluation we thought a more appropriate label was “teacher-less, cooperative learning groups”.
7 Le Brun is responsible for introduction of Offices into the Griffith curriculum as well as the development and refinement of the first year Office program. Airo-Farulla and Lamb designed the Office program for the second year course of study.
8 For an examination of peer tutoring in a law course see JH Moust, ML De Volder & HJ Nuy, Peer Teaching and Higher Level Cognitive Learning Outcomes in Problem Based Learning (1989) 18 Higher Educ 737; KG Collier, Peer-Group Learning in Higher Education: The Development of Higher Order Skills (1980) 5 Studies in Higher Educ 5.
9 The curriculum is described at length in M J Le Brun, Law at Griffith University: The First Year of Study (1992) Griffith Law Rev 15.
10 “Syndicates” were introduced in Constitutional Law by Professor Michael Detmold.
11 For a more detailed summary of the CUNY program and humanistic legal education, see in particular B L Bezdek, The CUNY Law Program: Integration of Doctrine, Practice and Theory in the Preparation of Lawyers (1993) 9 J Professional Legal Educ 59; H Lesnick, Infinity in a Grain of Sand: The World of Law and Lawyering in Clinical Teaching Implicit in the Law Curriculum (1990) 37 UCLA Law Rev 1157; J Himmelstein et al, Reassessing Law Schooling: The Sterling Forest Group (1978) 53 New York U Law Rev 561; J Himmelstein, Reassessing Law Schooling: An Inquiry into the Application of Humanistic Educational Psychology to the Teaching of Law (1978) 53 New York U Law Rev 514.
12 See JS Brown A Collins & P Dugid, Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning (1989) 18 Educational Researcher 32.
13 A more complete evaluation of Offices, incorporating student opinion and comments, will be available following the submission of a final report to the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching.
14 DA Schon, Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1987).
15 See K Mack, Bringing Clinical Learning into a Conventional Classroom [1993] LegEdRev 4; (1993) 4 Legal Educ Rev 89.
16 SL Rawson & AL Tyree, Self and Peer Assessment in Legal Education [1989] LegEdRev 11; (1989) 1 Legal Educ Rev, 135.
17 In 1993, students read extracts from Golding, The Lord of the Flies, Hobbes, Leviathan, Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Rousseau, The Social Contract, and Twining and Miers, How To Do Things With Rules: A Primer of Interpretation. In 1994 students will also be given a passage from Locke.
18 Fifty percent of students in the 1992 intake made this observation but only nineteen percent of the 1993 intake felt that this objective was not sufficiently clear.
19 See C Sampford & D Wood, Theoretical Dimensions of Legal Education — A Response to the Pearce Report (1988) 62 Aust Law 132.
20 M Holmes & J Maxwell, The Use of Role Play and Video in Teaching Communication Skills to Law Students (1987) 5 J Professional Legal Educ 151.
21 To date we know little of deep and surface approaches to learning by law students although some preliminary work has been done by G Mullins, J Whittle and K Mack at the University of Adelaide on approaches to learning in the context of a student moot program.
22 See, for example, S Wildman, The Classroom climate: Encouraging Student Involvement (1989) 4 Berkeley Women’s Law J 326.
23 Forty percent of 1992 first year students indicated dominance was a problem while only seven percent of 1993 first year students suggested they had difficulties with individuals dominating a group.
24 Organisational psychologists enable people to work together in units from small groups to organisations in a more satisfying and effective manner.
25 The skills and experience that people have are more important than their particular occupation or specific qualification. Effective resource people have experience in helping groups identify and solve their problems. Such people may have formal training in organisational psychology, process consultancy, community development, educational psychology, social work or education. For simplicity, we will use the term “organisational psychologist” to refer to people with these relevant skills.
26 M Knowles, The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species 4th ed (Houston: Gulf, 1990).
27 S Brookfield, Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1986).
28 See, in particular, B Dick, Helping Groups to be Effective: Skills, Processes and Concepts for Group Facilitation 2nd ed, (Chapel Hill, Queensland: Interchange, 1992); DW Johnson & FP Johnson, Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills 4th ed, (Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall, 1991).
29 See S Drury, Assertive Supervision: Building Involved Teamwork (Champagne, Ill: Research Press, 1984).
30 See R Bolton, People Skills: How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts (Brookvale, NSW: Simon and Schuster, 1987).
31 See H Cornelius, & S Faire, Everyone Can Win: How to Resolve Conflict (Brookvale, NSW: Simon and Schuster, 1989).
32 “Local” issues may include specific problems with course design, assessment, and functioning of individual groups.
33 The use of Action research in improving the Offices is described in B Dick, L Godden, K Healy & M Le Brun, The Use of Action Research in Developing Curricula in Law: Convergent Interviews and the “Offices” Project (forthcoming).
34 A team at Deakin University have prepared several valuable resource documents. See, in particular, R Carr & S Kemmis, Becoming Critical: Education Knowledge and Action Research (London: Falmer Press, 1986) and S Kemmis & R McTaggart (eds) The Action Research Planner (Waurn Ponds, Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1988).
35 D Jacques, Learning in Groups (London: Kogan Page, 1991); W J McKeachie, Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background (1990) 82 Journal of Educational Psychology 189.
36 A group of 3 did exist in 1992 and 1993, however. These students said that they found the work load heavy.
37 In hindsight we wonder whether such interference was the best course of action.
38 This general framework will, however, change as students who are enrolled in newer degree programs enter their second year of study.
39 In 1992 Office times were spread over a three hour time slot, thus giving a potential advantage in the preparation of reports to those students whose group met early.
40 The reporters are chosen by lottery so that at least, in theory, each group prepares thoroughly in case a member of their Office might be asked to report to the large group.
41 We recognise that not all students may welcome feedback from their peers and so such feedback will be optional.
42 Staff in the year one course meet formally with students in their individual Offices once in the academic year to discuss how the individual Offices are proceeding and to handle any concerns or questions the students might have. The visit is time consuming as we were able to visit four Offices at most in any fifty minute period.
43 See D Boud, Assessment and the Promotion of Academic Values (1990) 15 Studies in Higher Educ 101.
44 No reports were made to the large group in year two because the Offices spanned two different law subjects.
45 The compulsory final examination question was added in 1993 to encourage students to take Office work more seriously. Nevertheless, we would much prefer if students contribute irrespective of the existence and weight of assessment.
46 Unfortunately this assessment method caused some problems because the task was often delegated to one Office member, who completed the work with little assistance from the group.
47 For further information on the results of the video evaluation see L Godden D Lamb & M Le Brun, The Offices Project at Griffith University and the Use of Video in Evaluating Teaching Initiatives (forthcoming).
48 See S Rawson & AL Tyree, Self and Peer Assessment (1989) 1 Legal Education Review 134.
49 MJ Le Brun, Climates for Learning: Getting Acquainted in the First Year of Study (1989) Australasian Law Teaching Workshop Materials, Sydney, Macquarie University.
50 Some ways around these problems include: holding open discussions with students in large group classes about problems which might arise in Offices and ways in which to handle them; asking students to sign attendance cards which are to be collected when the Office meets; and reconsidering the weight of assessment as the penalty for non-compliance with attendance is severe in the second year programme and may act as an incentive for students to falsify attendance grades.
51 For a more detailed description see B Dick, Convergent Interviewing version 3 (Chapel Hill, Queensland: Interchange, 1990).
52 For example, we did not have readings and activities readily available to help some of the students overcome problems of dominance by some students.
53 Research indicates that six is generally the optimum size for groups. See D Jacques, Learning in Groups (London : Kogan Page, 1991); AK Rice, Learning For Leadership: Interpersonal and Intergroup Relations (London: Tavistock Publications, 1971).
54 It appears that a few mature age students try to dominate school leavers at the beginning of the academic year while some male students use gender politics as a way to abdicate responsibility which they are expected to assume and share as Office members.
55 We are our students’ first point of contact with the legal profession. If we wish to model for our students the work of the professional in action, we should consider talking about how we work. Our students should understand that even we professional teachers in law learn regularly from our successes as well as mistakes.
56 The development of the third year program, in particular, will be aided by the award of a 1994 National Teaching Development Grant from the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching to Airo-Farulla.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdRev/1993/12.html