Horan, Jacqueline; Taylor-Sands, Michelle --- "Bringing the Court and Mediation Room Into the Classroom" [2008] LegEdRev 11; (2008) 18(1&2) Legal Education Review 197
[*] Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne.
[**] Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne.
[1] For a discussion of the difference between ‘visual’ and ‘verbal’ learning styles, see Richard M Felder and Joni Spurlin, ‘Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles’ (2005) 21(1) International Journal of Engineering Education 103.
[2] The authors first taught the rules of civil litigation in Procedure, a subject in the Juris Doctor law program, or JD. The JD is a postgraduate law degree with a limited student intake. Procedure classes consisted of approximately 20 students and were taught for three hours over 12 weeks. The subject featured a court visit where students witnessed some interlocutory applications and talked to judges and barristers about their role in the process. Some of the students visited a litigation law firm and were able to discuss with current practitioners how to use the rules of procedure in negotiating on behalf of their clients. The subject was a joy to teach and the student feedback was very positive. According to the students, the on-site visits were the highlight of the course. For a discussion of the advantages of sending students to observe actual Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) sessions for teaching ADR in the United States, see Robert A Baruch Bush, ‘Using Process Observation to Teach Alternative Dispute Resolution: Alternatives to Simulation’ (1987) 37 Journal of Legal Education 46.
[3] The authors faced this challenge when they taught Civil Litigation to a group of over 200 undergraduate students in the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) course. Assessment consisted of one drafting exercise and one open book examination. The subject was unrewarding to teach and left students disinterested in the subject matter, which was reflected in student feedback. The authors were not alone in this negative teaching experience. Colleagues within the Law School complained of similar problems. These concerns were resoundingly echoed at the Civil Litigation Teaching and Research Symposium held at Flinders University on 15–16 April 2005. See also Kirsten Anker, Catherine Dauvergne, Mark Findlay and Jenny Millbank, ‘Evaluating a Change to Seminar-Style Teaching’ [2000] LegEdRev 4; (2000) 11 Legal Education Review 97, 104.
[4] Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System, Report No 89 (2000) [6.53]. For an interesting insight into the level of integration of ADR teaching in the curricula of Australian Law Schools in the past, see Richard Calver, ‘Teaching Alternative Dispute Resolution in Australian Law Schools: A Study’ (1996) 2 Commercial Dispute Resolution Journal 209. See also Jennifer David, ‘Training Issues in Dispute Resolution: Three Perspectives — I. Integrating Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Law Schools’ (1991) 2 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 5.
[5] For example, see Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 53A. Similar rules exist in state and territory jurisdictions.
[6] For a detailed discussion of the educational benefits of utilising simulations or role-playing exercises in legal education, see Jacqueline Lipton, ‘Role-Playing Exercises in First Year Legal Process Classes’ (1999) 16(1) Journal of Professional Legal Education 97. See also: Robert G Vaughn, ‘Use of Simulations in a First Year Civil Procedure Class’ (1995) 45(4) Journal of Legal Education 480; Karl S Okamoto, ‘Learning and Learning to Learn by Doing: Simulating Corporate Practice in Law School’ (1995) 45(4) Journal of Legal Education 498; Susan Carr-Gregg, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution in Practical Legal Training — Too Little Too Late?’ (1993) 10 Journal of Professional Legal Education 23, 34–5.
[7] Watching a video has been described as a ‘substitute experience’, which provides students with an opportunity to reflect in class on what they have seen in the video: Sally Kift, ‘Lawyering Skills: Finding Their Place in Legal Education’ [1997] LegEdRev 2; (1997) 8 Legal Education Review 43, 65. For example, following the video, the teacher can ask students specific questions about the approaches used in the video and whether or not they were effective. Reflection is a vital component in experiential learning as ‘experience alone is not sufficient for learning’: Ibid, 62. For a description of the type of activities involved in the various stages of the experiential learning cycle, see Graham Gibbs, Learning by Doing (1988) 13. See also David A Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (1984) 20. See also Susan Carr-Gregg, above n 6, 34–36.
[8] The DVD and file documents are not publicly available.
[9] See: Richard M Felder and Linda K Silverman, ‘Learning and Teaching Styles’ (1988) 78(7) Engineering Education 674, 676; Walter B Barbe and Michael N Milone. ‘What We Know about Modality Strengths’ (1981) 38(5) Educational Leadership, 378–80; Felder and Spurlin, above n 1, 106.
[10] The other learning-style categorisations in the Felder-Silverman model are sensing/intuitive, active/reflective and sequential/global: ibid.
[11] Ibid, 105.
[12]‘Educational institutions are increasingly engaged with integrating technology into the delivery of course materials and in the provision of alternate methods of learning.’: Derek Muller, John Eklund and Manjula D Sharma, ‘The Future of Multimedia Learning: Essential Issues for Research’ (Paper presented at the Association for Active Educational Researchers, Sydney, 2005) <http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mul05178.pdf> as at 4 December 2008. See also Marlene J Le Brun et al, ‘Producing Multi-Media Teaching/Learning Materials for Teaching Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Australian Law Schools: And the Lesson is … Soldier On’ (2001) 12 Legal Education Review 157.
[13] Muller, Eklund and Sharma, above n 12, 1.
[14] Calver, above n 4, 221.
[15] ‘Core legal skills’ are practice-oriented or vocational skills which include interviewing clients, drafting, negotiation and advocacy. The new LLB curriculum aimed to strengthen core legal skills in addition to developing students’ critical theoretical capabilities or ‘intellectual skills’. For a discussion of the importance of integrating core legal skills and intellectual skills in Australian law school curricula, see Dennis C Pearce, Enid Campbell & Don Harding, Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1987) (‘the Pearce Report’). See also Craig McInnis and Simon Marginson, Australian Law Schools after the 1987 Pearce Report (1994). For an international perspective, see American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Legal Education and Professional Development — An Educational Continuum, Report of the Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap (1992) (‘the MacCrate Report’), in which the American Bar Association called for a greater focus on the development of core legal skills in American legal education. See also Bobette Wolski, ‘Why, How and What to Practice: Integrating Skills Teaching and Learning in the Undergraduate Law Curriculum’ (2002) 52 Journal of Legal Education 287.
[16] Le Brun, above n 12, 171.
[17] Ibid.
[18] For a discussion of the general principles of active learning, see Paul L Caron and Rafael Gely, ‘Taking Back the Law School Classroom: Using Technology to Foster Active Student Learning’ (2004) 54(4) Journal of Legal Education 552–5.
[19] Ibid 555: Caron and Gely discuss the ‘backlash’ against the use of technology in the classroom, which has arisen as a result of passive learning environments created by unchecked technology in the classroom. See also Douglas L Leslie, ‘How Not to Teach Contracts, and Any Other Course: PowerPoint, Laptops and the CaseFile Method’ (2000) 44 St Louis University Law Journal 1289, 1304–06, where Leslie argues that the use of PowerPoint slides and laptops in classrooms create a passive-learning environment by destroying student interactions.
[20] Caron and Gely, above n 18, 552.
[21] The approach by different teachers varied.
[22] This assertion is based upon the authors’ own experience and observations made at the Civil Litigation Teaching and Research Symposium held at Flinders University on 15–16 April 2005.
[23] The DVD was intended as a teaching resource rather than to be used for assessment purposes. The cost of producing such a product means that it must be able to be used every year. Therefore, it does not provide any continuing assessment opportunities. It could, however, have been used for assessment purposes the first time it was introduced in the curriculum.
[24] There were four teachers, apart from the authors, who taught Dispute Resolution in 2006 and were asked to give their views on the value of the DVD as a teaching tool.
[25] It is relevant for the reader to be aware that such generalisations are subject to common empirical limitations. For example, student respondents are influenced by social desirability — the desire to please their teacher by providing answers that they think their teacher wants to hear: David A De Vaus, Surveys in Social Research (5th ed, 2002) 107.
[26]Michael Zander, ‘The Royal Commission’s Crown Court Survey’ (1992) 142 New Law Journal 1730, 1730. See generally, regarding sample size: De Vaus, above n 25, 80–83.
[27] Not all students responded to every question in the survey. Where this is the case, we have adjusted the total survey response figure to reflect this.
[28] Earl Babbie, Survey Research Methods (2nd ed, 1990) 130. See generally, De Vaus, above n 25, 94–119.
[29] This leading question will result in more respondents agreeing with the proposition contained in the question than if the question had been formulated in a non-leading way. However, in order not to overburden the students with a totally open-ended survey, the survey contains a mix of leading and non-leading questions. It is relevant for the reader to take this limitation into account when interpreting the results of the survey. These reported findings should not be interpreted as highly as conclusions accorded the mantle of fact. However, the results do provide some insight into whether the multimedia product provided any benefit for the students’ learning outcomes.
[30]For students who agreed, 23 per cent (n = 25/111) strongly agreed and 70 per cent (n = 78/111) agreed.
[31] None of the students disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition put. A five-point structured Likert scale was used for this and some other questions in the survey. Compared to a two-response question (yes or no) this allowed for greater sensitivity of opinions to be expressed.
[32] In the authors’ experience, the question by students, ‘How does it all fit together?’ is a common problem in the teaching of civil litigation.
[33] Of the 87 students who described themselves as at least partially visual learners, 33 students said they were visual learners and 54 said they were both verbal and visual learners.
[34]Three students did not respond to this specific question. The categorisation of the students as verbal and visual learners is of limited reliability as it is based on the respondents’ self assessment. Nevertheless this question does serve to indicate what type of learning the students feel that they respond well to.
[35] Felder and Silverman, above n 9.
[36]Multiple answers were possible for this question.
[37] See clarification by Felder of the visual/verbal as opposed to the earlier visual/auditory distinction in learning styles in Richard M Felder, Author’s Preface to Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education (June 2002)
<http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-1988.pdf> at 4 December 2008.
[38] Seventeen students did not respond to this question. Of those students who did not respond, some explained that there was little use made of the documents in their class or that they were away when the documents were discussed.
[39] The trial clip can be viewed as a stand-alone clip. However, teachers have the option of showing students earlier clips in the scenario, such as the initial client interview, to remind students about the background to the case.