Legal Education Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Legal Education Review |
|
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LEARNING IN LAW SCHOOLS BY
IMPROVING STUDENT ASSESSMENT
NICOLETTE ROGERS*
Internationally and nationally there is an exciting wave of renewed interest
in improving the quality of higher education. In the
context of legal education,
law schools across Australia are engaged (or soon will be given the new push
towards academic “accountability”),
in the sometimes painful process
of examining and evaluating the effectiveness of their teaching.
Whilst it
is essential when considering how to encourage students to adopt qualitative
learning approaches to consider the effect
of all elements in the learning
“eco-system”1 on the student, it is my
thesis that student assessment plays not only an important, but a critical role
in influencing their approaches
to learning tasks.
I am encouraged by the
similar sentiments expressed by such pre-eminent writers as Paul
Ramsden,2 William Twining3 and
Professor Kahn-Freund.4 Indeed, it is a tragic
indictment on the legal education system generally that it is now a quarter of a
century since Professor Kahn-Freund
pleaded that “... difficulties or
none, a start must be made and the first thing to be reformed is the examination
system.
This reform is the most urgent job confronting the present generation of
law teachers”.5
In 1987, in Australia, the
Pearce Committee6 reported the prevailing method of
assessment used by Australian law schools as the problem-type examination at the
end of the semester:
In all law schools except Macquarie and UNSW, a substantial majority of the subjects taught are assessed as to 50% or more of the possible marks by means of formal end of year or semester examinations.7
In my own law school in 1992,80 per cent of the
subjects offered will have examinations worth 80 per cent or more of the total
possible
marks available.
If the examination system was in need of
“urgent reform” twenty-five years ago, this generation of legal
educators risks
losing complete credibility if it does not engage in a
wholescale review of its assessment procedures.8
QUALITATIVE LEARNING APPROACHES
An “approach to learning has two aspects:
motive and a related strategy for satisfying the
motive.9
Most of us are already familiar with the
different approaches students may take to learning. They have been neatly
summarised as deep,
surface and achieving learning approaches.
Deep Learning Approach
Students adopting a deep approach to learning are
internally motivated to learn to satisfy their own interest or curiosity.
Typically,
such an approach involves the student maximising her or his
understanding of the relevant issues by reading widely and in discussion
or
reflection.
Deep approaches result in high qualitative learning outcomes.
The student achieves a personal meaning of the issues taught. There
is a sense
of ownership of the subject matter which makes it easier for the student to
impose meaning and structure and so perceive
personal relevance of the
subject.10
Surface Learning Approach
Students adopting a surface or superficial approach
to learning are externally motivated to learn. They may be motivated for
example,
by fear of failing the subject; the fact they have to prepare for some
form of assessment; or by family or peer group pressure.
If learning is
about changing one’s understanding or experience of the
world,11 then adopting a surface approach involves
students using learning strategies which do not necessarily change their
understanding
at all. These strategies give only an imitation of learning. The
learning which does occur has no relevance to the student’s
personal
understanding or experience of the subject-matter and the world that the
subject-matter tries to explain.12
Surface
approaches are associated with qualitatively inferior learning outcomes
(sometimes referred to as “quantitative learning
outcomes”13). Most knowledge acquired through
surface strategies is forgotten within a relatively short period of time whilst
the balance often
becomes “inert” knowledge which is never
adequately used by the student again.14
Achieving Learning Approach
A third category, the “achieving”
learning approach has also been identified. Students adopting an achieving
approach
are externally motivated (usually by the prospect of obtaining high
marks or some other institutional reward) and may adopt either
deep or surface
strategies to the task depending on which strategy optimises their time and
effort in achieving the desired learning
outcome.15
Clearly, good teaching requires that deep learning approaches be encouraged
and surface learning approaches be minimalised as much
as possible.
THE TEACHING CONTEXT
Implementing procedures which encourage deeper learning and discourage surface learning involves understanding the whole context in which the learning process takes place: what and how are students influenced to learn? In an excellent article entitled Teaching for Better Learning,16 Biggs diagrammatically illustrates the relationships between each of the factors influencing student learning as follows:
FIGURE l
|
PRESAGE
|
|
PROCESS
|
|
PRODUCT
|
|
STUDENT-BASED FACTORS
prior knowledge abilities motivation conception of learning language competence |
|
student efficacy perceptions
|
||
|
|
APPROACH
TO TASK surface deep achieving teacher efficacy perceptions
|
|
LEARNING
OUTCOME
quantitative qualitative institutional affective |
|
|
TEACHING CONTEXT curriculum method assessment climate conception of learning |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Source: Biggs, supra note 1, at 137.)
Clearly, improving the quality of students’ approaches to the learning
task requires improving the quality of the teaching context
so that the right
message is being sent to students: surface approaches are not sufficient; deep
approaches are desirable and necessary.
The teaching context comprises many
elements: curriculum, pedagogical methods, assessment, climate and the
teacher’s conception
of teaching (for instance, does the teacher believe
his or her role is merely to “transmit” knowledge from the
teacher’s
brain to that of the student?).
I began this paper with the
thesis that student assessment was very important, indeed critical in
influencing the qualitative learning
approach adopted by the student. My thesis
is in part the result of my own learning experience at law school and the
results of a
recent student survey I administered to a large number of law
students.
STUDENT SURVEY
In April 1992, I surveyed 145 third year full-time
students and 47 final year part-time students enrolled in the LLB degree at the
Queensland University of Technology.
Principally, the object of the survey
was to gather the students’ perceptions regarding:
The students’ responses to the
questionnaire have been submitted to a Curriculum Review Committee which has
been formed for
the purpose of thoroughly reviewing the law faculty’s
curriculum and assessment procedures. Apart from the students’
responses,
the Committee is also considering input from other interested parties including
legal and non-legal employer groups, barristers
and judges.
The students
completed the questionnaire (26 double sided pages in all comprising 36
questions some of which required written comments),
in approximately 40 to 45
minutes during class time. The questionnaire was received with general
enthusiasm by the students. All
192 students who participated in the survey,
completed every question except for a very small number of students who were
unable
to complete the questionnaire due to lack of time.
Prior to
administering the questionnaire, the students were assured that their responses
to the survey were completely confidential
and would assist the faculty in
preparing future teaching objectives and in reviewing the current curriculum.
The concepts of “deep” and “surface” learning were
verbally explained to the students and reinforced in writing
at the commencement
of the section of questions on the questionnaire dealing with “deep”
and “surface” learning
issues. The same explanation of these
concepts was given to each class of students participating in the survey.
HOW IMPORTANT IS STUDENT ASSESSMENT?
How important is student assessment in contrast to the other elements of the teaching context in influencing qualitative learning approaches? In determining this question, the students were asked to rank from 1 to 3 their most critical responses to the following question.
“What motivates you to learn about this subject?
The results of the students’ number 1 ranked responses to
this question are summarised in table 1 below.
Interestingly, 45 per cent of
the students ranked number one, “the fact that I have to sit an exam at
the end of semester”.
Twenty-three per cent ranked their number one
response as “fear of failing the subject”. Only seven per cent
ranked that
they were most motivated by “interest or curiosity”.
Assessment was ranked the primary motivation for learning by a total 70 per
cent of the students surveyed. This figure includes two
per cent of the students
who ranked their prime motive for learning as their “desire to be the best
in the subject”.
These students would probably adopt an achieving approach
to learning tasks.
Obviously, there may be more than one hypothesis for
these results. The fact that more of the students are not being motivated by
“interest or curiosity” or that “the subject appears to be
relevant to practice or desired career path”,
may suggest weaknesses in
the areas of the teaching context we have previously noted (namely, curriculum,
pedagogical methods, climate
or the teacher’s or faculty’s
conception of teaching).
TABLE 1: What Motivates You to Learn About this Subject?
Percentage of students ranking responses number one.
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time students
|
Part-time students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
The fact that I have to sit an exam at the end of semester
|
51%
|
27%
|
45%
|
|
2
|
Fear of failing the subject
|
23%
|
25%
|
23%
|
|
3
|
The subject appears to be relevant to practice or desired career path
|
11%
|
30%
|
15%
|
|
4
|
Interest/Curiosity
|
8%
|
5%
|
7%
|
|
5
|
Desire to be the best in the subject
|
3%
|
—
|
2%
|
|
6
|
Fear of having to repeat the subject and incur further tertiary fees
|
—
|
7%
|
2%
|
|
7
|
The fact that I have to prepare an assignment or moot
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
|
8
|
Prestige associated with having a law degree
|
1%
|
—
|
1%
|
|
9
|
Monetary rewards
|
1%
|
—
|
1%
|
|
10
|
Other
|
4%
|
5%
|
4%
|
It is interesting to speculate why only 27 per cent of part-time students (as
opposed to 51 per cent of full-time students), responded
“the fact that I
have to sit an exam at the end of semester” as their primary motivation
for learning. Instead, 30 per
cent of the part-time students ranked as their
primary motivation for learning “the subject appears to be relevant to
practice
or desired career path”. Only 11 per cent of the full-time
students ranked this as their number one response.
The discrepancy may be
explained by:
(a) the different subject areas in which the full-time and part-time students were surveyed.
(b) the practical experience part-time students acquire places them in a better position to appreciate the relevance and possible applications of the course content than full-time students who do not have the advantage of this perspective.
(c) the maturity of the part-time students (compared to the full-time
students), in terms of both age and legal experience, provides
them with a more
meaningful and long-term approach to their studies than full-time students.
The above represent suggested hypotheses only and would require further
investigation. However, the disparity between the full-time
and part-time
students’ responses should be of interest to curriculum planners. The
results may suggest that clinical education
programs have an important role in
the full-time curriculum.
These results serve as a warning to all law
schools. Unless a perfect teaching environment exists, which can never be
assumed by any
good teacher (and even then, the students’ own
characteristics including attitudes to learning, previous learning experiences,
abilities, conception of learning and so on as noted by Biggs in the learning
eco-system above, may unfavourably influence how the
student approaches the
learning task), assessment will be for the large majority of students, the real
impetus for learning.
Teachers can not afford to neglect paying serious and
careful attention to the quality of learning that assessment tasks will require
of their students.
Assessment plays a key role in determining the quality of student learning. If students perceive that their learning will be measured in terms of reproducing facts or implementing memorised procedures and formulae, they will adopt approaches that prevent understanding from being reached. The widespread use of surface approaches to learning, and the related fact that students may successfully complete their courses while never gaining an understanding of fundamental ideas which the teachers of those courses themselves desire their students to gain, together indicate beyond reasonable doubt that much assessment in higher education is flawed.17
If assessment plays such a “key” role, how effective are our current assessment procedures in eliciting high qualitative learning approaches?
EXAMINATIONS
As mentioned at this paper’s commencement, the
dominant mode of assessment in most law schools in Australia continues to be
the
problem-based exam. Traditionally, there have been few variations to this
assessment mode except that the exam may be open-book
or closed-book; it may
contain an essay question or short note questions; it may contain compulsory
questions including compulsory
case note questions or it may comprise a choice
of questions.
At the Queensland University of Technology, most exams are now
open-book. All of the varieties of exams mentioned above are used. The
law school uses exams principally in tandem with assignments as the mode of
assessment in most subjects (although assignments are usually worth only 15 to
20 per cent of the total available marks for the subject).
How Effective are Examinations in Encouraging Deeper Learning Strategies?
In the student survey mentioned above, students were requested to rank 1 to 3 their most critical responses to the following question:
‘Which of the following factors do you believe hamper students engaging in a deeper approach to learning?
The results of students’ number 1 ranked responses to this question are summarised in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2: Which of the Following Factors Do You Believe Hamper Students Engaging in a Deeper Approach to Learning?
Percentage of students ranked number one responses.
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Subject workload is too heavy ie., too many subjects and not enough time to
devote to interesting topics in individual subjects
|
46%
|
53%
|
48%
|
|
2
|
Exams encourage rote learning or a superficial grasp of the subject at the
expense of deeper learning objectives
|
20%
|
38%
|
24%
|
|
3
|
Assessment Demands of subjects too heavy to spend time exploring particular
topics of interest or difficulty
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
|
4
|
Lack of stimulating or inspirational teaching
|
2%
|
4%
|
3%
|
|
5
|
Subject material is boring
|
2%
|
4%
|
3%
|
|
6
|
Subject material seems irrelevant to life in the ‘real
world’
|
1%
|
—
|
1%
|
|
7
|
Other
|
2%
|
11%
|
4%
|
Fifty-one per cent of the total students surveyed ranked as their number one
response to this question “subject workload is
too heavy”.
Thirty-two per cent ranked their no 1 response as “exams encourage rote
learning or a superficial grasp of
the subject at the expense of deeper learning
objectives”. Twelve per cent ranked as their no 1 response:
“assessment
demands of subjects too heavy to spend time exploring
particular topics of interest or difficulty”.
The results confirm the
conclusions of previous studies. Surface approaches are encouraged (amongst
other things), by an excessive
amount of material in the curriculum; excessive
assessment; assessment methods that emphasise recall or the application of
trivial
procedural knowledge; and assessment methods that create
anxiety.18
The results also demonstrate Paul
Ramsden’s assertion that there are two aspects of assessment which
directly influence students’
learning: the amount of assessed work and the
quality of the task being assessed.19
Again,
assessment is clearly perceived by the students as an important factor
influencing their qualitative approaches to the learning
task (as a total of 44
per cent of the students identified weaknesses in this area as being the most
responsible factor hampering
their adoption of deeper approaches to learning).
In another question, the students were asked to rank 1 to 3 their most
critical responses to the following question:
“What approach would you recommend to encourage deeper learning amongst students?
The results of the students’ number 1 ranked responses to this question are summarised in table 3 below.
TABLE 3: What Approach Would You Recommend to Encourage Deeper Learning Amongst Students?
Percentage of students ranked number one responses.
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Reduce the assessment weight of end of semester exams and place greater
emphasis on other forms of assessment
|
33%
|
33%
|
33%
|
|
2
|
Reduce the number of compulsory subjects in the LLB degree and introduce
more law elective subjects
|
20%
|
38%
|
24%
|
|
3
|
Reduce the content of the curriculum in each law subject and concentrate on
a brief overview of the subject with detailed study of
only a few major or
interesting topics
|
16%
|
10%
|
15%
|
|
4
|
Introduce greater variety in forms of assessment
|
13%
|
—
|
10%
|
|
5
|
Reduce the amount of assessment currently required in each subject
|
7%
|
5%
|
7%
|
|
6
|
Teach more relevant and practical skills
|
2%
|
5%
|
3%
|
|
7
|
Introduce greater student choice in formulating subject assessment
schemes
|
2%
|
—
|
2%
|
|
8
|
Other
|
6%
|
5%
|
6%
|
|
9
|
Unsure
|
1%
|
3%
|
1%
|
|
10
|
Uninterested
|
—
|
3%
|
1%
|
Interestingly, the highest percentage of students (33 per cent) ranked as
their number one response “reduce the assessment weight
of end of semester
exams and place greater emphasis on other forms of assessment”.
Finally, the students were requested to indicate their response to the
following statement:
“It is possible to pass an exam without really understanding the subject examined.
The results of the students’ responses to this question are summarised in table 4 below.
TABLE 4: It is Possible to Pass an Exam Without Really Understanding the Subject Examined.
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Yes
|
47%
|
46%
|
47%
|
|
2
|
No
|
25%
|
26%
|
25%
|
|
3
|
Unsure
|
7%
|
11%
|
8%
|
|
4
|
Sometimes. It depends on ...
|
21%
|
17%
|
20%
|
Only 25 per cent of the total students surveyed responded “no” to
this statement.
Forty-seven per cent of students agreed with the statement.
Twenty per cent responded “Sometimes. It depends on ...”.
Those
indicating this response mentioned that the following factors were relevant as
to whether they could pass the exam without
really understanding it: luck; the
type of exam (for example, whether problem or essay type or whether the exam was
closed or open
book); the subject; how everyone else performed; how well you
have memorised the material; your exam technique; whether you can
“bluff”
your way through it. Open book exams were overwhelmingly
favoured by the students in promoting a deeper learning approach to the
subject
than closed book exams.
In the context of these results, the suggested
rationale for using formal exams as the predominant form of assessment seems to
pale
in comparison.
There is a number of advantages in formal examinations. It is possible to be virtually certain that the marks obtained by a student in a formal examination are the result of his own unaided efforts. Examinations provide a relatively standardised method of scaling students in order of merit with far greater precision than is possible in the case of written assignments. There is a need for law students to learn and retain some knowledge of the basic principles and leading authorities in a subject. Examinations require students to undertake a rapid comprehension of novel, factual material, analyse that material, select the relevant case law and statutory authorities and apply them to the issues, all of which are skills required of lawyers in some situations in practice.20
Of course the other benefits of using the examination method of assessment include:
The primary motive for the
examination as disclosed above, however, appears to be the function of
assessment as a means of certification
— a means of grading and
categorising students for the benefit of employer groups. How valid are exams a
measure of “lawyer
competency” however, when almost 70 per cent of
all students feel that it is possible to pass an exam without really
understanding
the subject examined?
The secondary rationale for exams
advanced above is that it leads students to learn and retain some knowledge of
the basic principles
in a subject.
I requested students in the survey
previously mentioned to answer the following question:
“In your previous years at law school you have studied various subjects. Do you remember the basic legal framework and principles of those subjects?
The results of the students’ responses to this question are summarised in table 5 below.
TABLE 5: Do You Remember the Basic Legal Framework and Principles of Previously Studied Subjects?
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Yes, an excellent memory of them.
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
2
|
Yes, a good memory of them
|
13%
|
9%
|
12%
|
|
3
|
Yes, a reasonable memory of them
|
60%
|
63%
|
61%
|
|
4
|
Hardly any memory at all
|
26%
|
28%
|
26%
|
|
5
|
No memory at all.
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
To gain further information, I asked the students to rank from 1 to 3 their most critical responses to the following question.
“Do you attribute your memory of any previous subject studied to:
other? Please specify ................................”
The results of the students’ number 1 ranked responses to this question are summarised in table 6 below.
TABLE 6: What Do You Attribute Your Memory of Previously Studied Subjects?
Percentage of students ranked number one responses
|
|
Possible Responses
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Interesting subject content.
|
21%
|
41%
|
26%
|
|
2
|
Exam preparation
|
25%
|
20%
|
24%
|
|
3
|
Good teaching
|
19%
|
9%
|
16%
|
|
4
|
Assignment preparation
|
11%
|
7%
|
10%
|
|
5
|
Your own intelligence/good memory
|
10%
|
7%
|
9%
|
|
6
|
Subject’s relevance to your future career
|
5
|
11
|
7
|
|
7
|
Moot preparation
|
4
|
—
|
3
|
|
8
|
Unsure
|
2
|
—
|
2
|
|
9
|
Other
|
2
|
7
|
3
|
Most students ranked as their number one response to this question
“interesting subject content” (26 per cent). Note again
however, the
discrepancy between the full-time and part-time students’ responses.
Forty-one per cent of part-time students
attributed their memory of previously
studied subjects to “interesting subject content”, while only 21 per
cent of full-time
students attributed their memory to this factor. Instead, a
greater proportion of full-time students (25 per cent), attributed their
memory
to “exam preparation”.
This discrepancy between the full-time
and part-time students’ responses support the earlier hypotheses for the
discrepancies
noted between these two groups’ responses in table 1 above.
Despite these discrepancies, it is noted that there was no material
differences between the responses of the full-time and part-time
students when
asked “Do you remember the basic legal framework and principles” of
previously studied subjects in table
5 above. Both groups, in the large
majority, reported having only a “reasonable” memory with over
one-quarter of the
students in each group responding that they had “hardly
any memory at all”.
In the results summarised in table 6 above,
“exam preparation” was ranked number one by 24 per cent of the
students. Sixteen
per cent of the students ranked “good teaching” as
their number one response.
Examinations are usually the only form of
assessment which requires the students to review the whole course content. In
this sense
then, arguably, examinations perform an important function in
bringing together in overall context, all the conceptual principles
taught
during the year.
Indeed the results of other questions on the survey confirm
this student perception.
The students were asked:
“Does preparing for exams expand and deepen your understanding of a subject?
The results of this survey question appear in table 7 below.
TABLE 7: Does Preparing for Exams Expand and Deepen Your Understanding of a Subject?
|
|
Possible Responses
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Always
|
28%
|
39%
|
31%
|
|
2
|
Often
|
31%
|
20%
|
28%
|
|
3
|
Occasionally
|
24%
|
23%
|
24%
|
|
4
|
Hardly Ever
|
16%
|
11%
|
15%
|
|
5
|
Never
|
1%
|
4%
|
2%
|
|
6
|
Unsure
|
—
|
2%
|
1%
|
Clearly, most students regard preparing for exams as helping them to varying
degrees, understand the subject. I then asked the students
to explain their
responses to this question.
Many students reported that exam preparation
enabled them to get a complete overview of the subject. Other students who had
responded
“never” or “hardly ever” to this question
stressed the very limited level of understanding that is required
to pass the
exam; the fact that rote learning and issue spotting seems to be sufficient to
pass without really understanding “why
things are the way they
are”. Many others reported that the knowledge learnt for exams is
quickly forgotten.
Those students who responded “occasionally”
to this question commented that it was helpful to prepare for exams because
they
were able to appreciate the overall structure of the subject. Others commented
that it depended on how much time was left (after
studying for other subjects)
and the quality of lecture and seminar notes or the text book which determined
the level of learning
that took place. There were also comments regarding how
quickly the knowledge they learnt for exams was forgotten after the exam.
In
these responses we see a heavy reliance placed on external factors to teach
rather than on internal inquiry processes being initiated
by the students
themselves. Self-learning is low. The students rely on the teacher, the tutor or
the textbook to provide them with
all they need to know. Exams are not seen as
involving much initiative, innovation or creativity.
I requested the
students to rank 1–3 their most critical responses to the following
question:
“Do you attribute any lack of memory of any subject previously studied to:
The results of the students’ number one ranked responses to this question are summarised in table 8 below.
TABLE 8: What Do You Attribute Any Lack of Memory of Subjects Previously Studied?
Percentage of students ranked number one responses.
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Exams simply require you to rote learn rules and cases which are then
easily forgotten within a relatively short time after the exam
|
47%
|
47%
|
47%
|
|
2
|
Large volume of content covered in subjects makes it impossible to
remember
|
24%
|
24%
|
24%
|
|
3
|
Bad teaching
|
10%
|
18%
|
13%
|
|
4
|
Boring subject content
|
9%
|
4%
|
8%
|
|
5
|
Your own lack of understanding of the subject
|
7%
|
2%
|
6%
|
|
6
|
Your own laziness
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
|
7
|
Other
|
—
|
2%
|
1%
|
|
8
|
Unsure
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
An overwhelming 47 per cent of students attributed their inability to
remember previous subjects to exams which “simply require
you to rote
learn rules and cases which are then easily forgotten within a relatively short
time after the exam”.
The next most popular response was the
“large volume of content covered in subjects which makes it impossible to
remember”
(24 per cent).
A possible hypothesis of these results is
that examinations being the principal (in some subjects, the only) mode of
assessment, it
is obvious that some learning must occur in order to prepare for
them. The quality of the learning for most students is low (70 per
cent feel it
is possible to pass the exam without necessarily understanding the subject
examined). However, it appears that exams
are perceived as performing a
beneficial service in forcing students to review the whole semester’s work
which gives them some
sense of structure and meaning to what they have learnt.
FUNCTIONS OF ASSESSMENT
Whilst student grading and certification is a valid
function of assessment, it should not be regarded as the predominant function.
To the extent that examinations are regarded advantageously as providing
“a relatively standardised method of scaling students
in order of
merit,21 we risk, as Derek Rowntree warns,
“committing McNamara’s Fallacy ... by making the measurable
important when we would
be better employed attempting to make the important
measurable”.22
Also, as Paul Ramsden notes:
Uniformity of methods makes comparisons superficially easy but forces students into a situation where they may not be able to display what they have learned and where there are often hidden rewards for conformity rather than originality ... Generally, the more predictable, more narrow, and the more conventional the learning outcome which is measured is, the more likely it is that assessment will produce consistent results.23
As we have seen, assessment plays a “key” role in influencing students’ learning approaches. More important than any other of its possible functions, assessment is a precious teaching and learning tool. “Good teaching” requires that assessment be regarded and used principally for teaching the skills and competencies we desire our students to learn; for encouraging interest, commitment and intellectual challenge; and for enhancing independence and responsibility.24
DESIGNING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE STUDENT LEARNING
There are four essential aspects of assessment which require consideration:
Linking Assessment with Teaching Objectives
This necessitates that the teacher already have
identified what are her or his teaching objectives. Preferably, the teaching
objectives
were set by the teacher and the curriculum planners acting together
in designing the conceptual and skills education program for
the entire
undergraduate course.
The curriculum planners may have allocated
responsibility for the teaching of various skills to the teacher. It will then
be up to
the teacher to decide how he or she will teach and test for those
skills. It may be however, that the teacher will have to justify
that the
assessment procedures selected do teach and test the teaching objectives
previously agreed upon between the curriculum planners
and the teacher.
The
Pearce Committee suggested that:
There is advantage in a school committee providing some oversight of assessment packages. We think that there should be limits on the freedom of lecturers to assess subjects in any way they please — at least the more unusual form of assessment should have to be justified.25
There are obviously some assessment guidelines which must be adhered to, including:
(a) that too much assessment work leads to superficial approaches. This has already been demonstrated by the results summarised in tables 2, 3 and 8 above.
(b) that a variety of assessment methods must be used to accommodate the
different learning styles of different students.26
A great criticism of the overuse of the examination method of assessment is
that it prejudices those students who are “concrete”
learners or who
learn by “active experimentation”.27
It
is well documented that “success breeds motivation”. Accordingly, if
these types of students are constantly failing
to achieve their own usually high
expectations of success, they will be less motivated to learn and adopt deep
approaches to the
next learning task.
In addition, Ramsden notes that
“although a greater variety of methods may be administratively
inconvenient, it offers more
latitude for students to display their knowledge
and it has the potential to provide a more accurate — though more complex
depiction of each student’s achievement”.28
Making Assessment Criteria Clear to the Students
If assessment criteria are published beforehand, students perceive the relevance of the set task to their overall learning. It is the stated policy of the Queensland University of Technology that:
The principles underpinning assessment strategies imply that clear and unambiguous information should be available to students ...
To test whether this policy was being successfully maintained in the law faculty, I asked the students:
“Do teachers generally make clear to you what criteria they are using when assessing your performance in a subject?
The students’ responses are summarised in table 9 below.
TABLE 9: Do Teachers Generally Make Clear to You What Criteria They are Using When Assessing Your Performance in a Subject?
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Yes, always
|
5%
|
4%
|
5%
|
|
2
|
Most of the time
|
37%
|
21%
|
33%
|
|
3
|
Occasionally
|
30%
|
38%
|
32%
|
|
4
|
Hardly ever
|
23%
|
32%
|
25%
|
|
5
|
Never
|
6%
|
4%
|
5%
|
Considering that there are no resource difficulties in pre-publishing
assessment criteria for students (for example, via subject outlines
or orally in
class), it seems difficult to justify that 30 per cent of students responded
negatively (that is, “hardly ever”
or “never”) to this
question.
Alternatively, the message students are sending us may be entirely
different: assessment criteria are stated but are not clear or
relevant.
Timely and Helpful Feedback
The importance of feedback on student assessment
cannot be over-emphasised.
In his article, A Closet Within the House:
Learning Objectives and the Law School
Curriculum,29 Andrew Petter pointed out that
cognitive skills can not be “taught” in the narrow sense of the
word. He said:
How does one teach a student to organise and process ideas? Telling a student to comprehend, apply, analyse, synthesise and evaluate material — or even demonstrating these skills — does not teach the student ... The only way to teach a student to organise and process ideas is through interaction with and feedback to the student in an ongoing process of supervised trial and error.30
In other words,
feedback on student performance of learning tasks must be continuously provided
throughout the year and not solely
in the form of a number or percentage figure
on a final examination at the end of semester.
Feedback in the form of
constructive comments following assessment tasks may have an important role in
law schools with large classes
of students. As Petter has noted:
If the number of students in the class is small, then it may well be possible to devote sufficient attention to each one so as to fully explore and develop his or her intellectual abilities for organising and processing knowledge at each level within the cognitive domain. If the number of students in the class is large, however, these skills probably cannot be taught within the classroom. In the case of large classes, the best solution may be to integrate ongoing evaluation into the teaching process, even at the expense of cutting back of classroom hours. Rather than setting one final exam, law professors might, throughout a course, set a variety of mini-exams focusing on specific learning objectives ... Other means for teaching intellectual skills occur within the context of clinical programs, individual tutorials and directed research.31
In this way,
the function of assessment can be seen as being predominantly one of teaching
and learning rather than grading or for
certification of the student.
Many
legal educators agree that this is a desired ideal, but complain that in most
cases student numbers are so large that it is not
practical to provide adequate
feedback to every student.
There are various aids which have been suggested
to assist in overcoming this problem. In particular, a pre-printed feedback form
specifying areas which may be ticked where they require attention by the student
may be useful. More fundamentally however, we are
simply not fulfilling our role
as legal educators if we do not provide adequate and timely feedback.
In its
stated assessment policy for 1995 the Queensland University of Technology Law
Faculty states the functions of assessment as
including:
These are
outstanding objectives but are they being met?
In the student survey
previously described, I asked students:
“Have you ever received helpful feedback on your performance after assessment?
TABLE 10: Have You Ever Received Helpful Feedback on Your Performance After Assessment?
|
|
Possible Response
|
Full-time Students
|
Part-time Students
|
Total
|
|
1
|
Yes, always
|
5%
|
4%
|
5%
|
|
2
|
Most of the time
|
37%
|
21%
|
33%
|
|
3
|
Occasionally
|
30%
|
38%
|
32%
|
|
4
|
Hardly ever
|
23%
|
32%
|
25%
|
|
5
|
Never
|
6%
|
4%
|
5%
|
|
6
|
Unsure
|
1%
|
—
|
1%
|
Unfortunately, 63 per cent of the total students surveyed responded
“hardly ever” or “never” to this question.
It is
suggested that the heavy reliance on examinations as the principal (in some
subjects the exclusive), form of assessment must
bear some of the responsibility
for this disappointing response.
Often, exams are used at the end of the
course and therefore students see little point in obtaining feedback and staff,
little point
in giving it.
A well-drafted exam may have an important role in
the law school as a form of student assessment. It simply can not be relied upon
as the only form of assessment. More continuous assessment is required. This
demand is normally met with the concomitant complaints
of academic staff that it
eats into their research time and can not be justified.
It is the stated
policy of the Queensland University of Technology (like that adopted by many
other universities), that research and
teaching are complementary functions. A
lecturer is required to demonstrate both teaching and research skills to a
satisfactory level
(as well as showing satisfactory service to the University
and the wider community).
Is it the case that to satisfactorily teach
(including preparing assessment and giving adequate and timely feedback to
students whose
numbers may swell to more than 300 enrolled students in any one
subject at the Queensland University of Technology Law School), it
is
unreasonable to also expect “satisfactory” or better performances in
the areas of research and service to the University
and wider community?
Is
research engaged in for the purpose of proposed publication in legal journals
different to research engaged in for the purpose
of preparing undergraduate
classes? Is it feasible for a faculty of law to have some academics involved
exclusively in research for
publication or applied use and some involved purely
in teaching with the opportunity — indeed perhaps the expectation, that
academics would swap between the two divides after a period of time and
following completion of specific projects?
It is beyond the scope of this
paper to enter into discussion of these issues. Clearly the area is fraught with
tension and ongoing
debate, some of which has not been entirely free of passion,
in the past. As government, community and university expectations regarding
the
quality of legal education services which should be provided continue to rise
however, this may well be one of the most crucial
and divisive issues requiring
informed and non-emotive debate confronting us today and in the future.
Measuring the Effectiveness of Assessment Methods
Obviously, the success of various assessment methods
over time may be measured by student performance and perhaps, as Ramsden has
commented, if we discover that students do well in some pieces of assessment but
poorly in others.34 It is somewhat paradoxical that
good assessment technique may result in the thwarting of the consistency
objectives so often sought
by law faculties in implementing assessment methods.
However:
Our understanding of the way students learn leads us to see that these are not educational problems at all. They are actually desirable outcomes: any one-dimensional measure of a person’s achievement in many different tasks is almost certainly inadequate, and may be entirely misleading. Uniformity of methods makes comparisons superficially easy but forces students into a situation where they may not be able to display what they have learned, and where there are often hidden rewards for conformity rather than originality.35
The employment of a variety of assessment methods is important. In designing assessment strategies, some scope for student choice is also desirable. This gives the student a greater sense of ownership and responsibility for her or his work. It also increases the student’s awareness of the relevance of the assessment method chosen to the course goals.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps more important than any other contributor to
the learning process is our assessment strategies. We have seen how assessment
plays a key motivational role and more importantly quite often, determines the
qualitative approaches students take to learning tasks.
This paper will have
achieved its purpose if it has succeeded in demonstrating the need for
Australian universities to seriously consider
and carefully plan their
assessment procedures in encouraging qualitative approaches by students to their
studies. In particular,
we need to see the primary function of assessment as an
important teaching and learning tool rather than as a mechanism for grading
the
“rank and file”. Admittedly, time spent in increasing the quality of
our teaching services will have costs, particularly
in depleting the time
available for research and university and community service.
However if we
continue to ignore the importance of well-planned and co-ordinated assessment
policies in our law schools, we risk legal
education being placed “in the
unenviable position of the legal profession — much criticised, much
distrusted, much questioned,
not much respected.36
* Queensland University of Technology Law Faculty. I am grateful to Carol
Nicoll for assistance in formatting a student questionnaire,
the results of
which are discussed in this paper. The results of the student survey do not
necessarily reflect the views and perceptions
of all students in all subjects at
the QUT Law Faculty.
© 1993. [1993] LegEdRev 5; (1993) 4 Legal Educ Rev 113.
1 J Biggs, Teaching for Better Learning [1991] LegEdRev 8; (1991) 2 Legal Educ Rev 133, at 137.
2 P Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Melbourne: Routledge, 1992) 67, at 182.
3 W Twining, Pericles and the Plumber (1967) 83 LQR 396, at 424.
4 O Kahn-Freund, Reflections on Legal Education (1966) 29 Mod L Rev 121, at 134.
5 Id.
6 D Pearce, E Campbe11 & D Harding, 1 Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (Pearce Report) (Canberra: AGPS, 1987) at ss 3.49ff.
7 Id at s 3.51.
8 A J Pirie, Objectives in Legal Education: The Case for Systematic Instructional Design (1987) 37 J Legal Educ 576, at 577.
9 Biggs, supra note 1, at 138.
10 Ramsden, supra note 2, at 65.
11 Id at 4.
12 Id at 39.
13 Biggs, supra note 1, at 139.
14 Ramsden, supra note 2, at 31.
15 Biggs, supra note l, at 140.
16 Id.
17 Ramsden, supra note 2, at 182.
18 Id at 81.
19 Id at 67.
20 Pearce Report, supra note 6, at s 3.50 (submission by QIT, as it was then known).
21 Id.
22 D Rowntree, Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? (London: Kogan Page, 1987).
23 Ramsden, supra note 2, at 191.
24 Id at 67.
25 Pearce Report, supra note 6, at sec. 3.5.9.
26 R Johnstone, Rethinking the Teaching of the Law [1992] LegEdRev 2; (1992) 3 Legal Educ Rev 17, at 30–32; 56–57.
27 Id at 30.
28 Ramsden, supra note 2, at 191.
29 A Petter, “A Closet Within the House: Learning Objectives and the Law School Curriculum”, in N Gold ed, Essays on Legal Education (Toronto: Butterworths, 1982).
30 Id at 85–86.
31 Id at 87.
32 QUT Faculty of Law, Internal Information Booklet 1992, at 1–2.
33 Id.
34 Ramsden, supra note 2, at 191.
35 Id.
36 A J Pirie, supra note 8 at 577.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdRev/1993/5.html