CLEA day 1, session 2

by Paul Maharg on 23/03/2017

I had to miss a few papers for meetings.  I caught most of Jenny Chan’s paper (Jenny is a PhD student at Chinese U of HK – I know her from working with staff and students there) on ‘Collaborative and co-operative learning in legal education – the case of Hong Kong’.  Collab. vs Coop models — are they the same thing? No — co-op work produces individual work for an individual grade while collaborative work involves students working jointly to produce a final product for a joint grade. (Rosenbaum & Zimmerman, Fostering teamwork through co-operative and collaborative assignments).  She also noted the effects of pedagogical values vs issues.  Values: learning outcomes, positive student responses.  But issues: free riders, learning styles, time-consuming, over-assessment and reliable evidence.  In the context of HK, culture has an influence on learning styles — eg learning styles of a lecture vs the collection ist culture and the priority on group.  She took three studies in HK.  First, Jackson’s study of English proficiency, Flowerdew on the benefits from collaborative learning (eg HK students do work collectively and have collective responsibility), and You & Ko on behavioural issues, ie free riders (low in trust), and conflict resolution (high in trust). Final remarks — Jenny noted that terminologies are used inconsistently; perceived pedagogical values, but also there’s a need to be aware of issues; and does this have applicability in HK?  Yes, she would argue, particularly in an exam-based assessment culture.


I’m attending the CLEA conference, and giving a paper with Julian Webb (slides up on the Slides tab above). Welcome and Acknowledgment of Country by David Barker, who also presented a paper giving a general summary of the history of Australian law schools from 1960 onwards.

In their paper Claire Carroll and Brad Jessup examined ‘The sustainability business clinic (SBC) — a model for Australian clinical legal education for a ‘new environmentalism and integrative environmental law’.  Key points:

  • Sustainability legal education remains impractical and siloed
  • a focus on skills, attitudes, competencies and values
  • Key competencies include: systemic thinking, handling complexity, anticipatory thinking, acting fairly and ecologically, co-operation, evaluation.

In putting the SBC together the presenters focused on reflective practice and wellbeing, eg reflection on self, on life in the law, on justice, on skills, autonomy, relatedness and competence.  Conclusions?  SBC provides student with transferable skills and an understanding of law in context.  SBC students acquire a robust appreciation of environmental law in context and experience autonomy-support teaching which may facilitate their wellbeing.  These conclusions were supported by data.  They distributed student quotes that demonstrated this…  Interesting quotes over the range of reflective practice, eg ‘how can a lawyer be both dispassionate and empathetic?’ ‘Being part of the clinic has helped me to clarify why I was interested in the law in the first place’.  And ‘I find it interesting — and slightly disconcerting — that law school focuses so much on case law and not that much on reading and analysing legislation’.  What next?  There will be data collection over the next five years, and they will use additional methods to facilitate comparison of pedagogies between clinical and traditional subjects.  They hoped that they were making a modest contribution to legal education by providing some insights into the effects of clinical pedagogy and the best practices in teaching environmental law.  Good paper on a great project.

After coffee, Siva Sivakumar and colleague, from the Indian Law Institute, on ‘The role of ethics in legal education in the Commonwealth’. Law is one of the most popular subjects in HE in India — over 1300 law schools nationally.  Fast-paced paper and I missed part of it so I won’t try to summarise, but full of interesting data and contextual information.

Liz Curran, a colleague from ANU College of Law and an associate director of PEARL, is next up, on ‘Envisioning student learning in a multi-disciplinary student clinic – future practitioners learning about working collaboratively across disciplines to better help community’.  Liz wants students to learn with lawyers and other practitioners.  She showed a video clip on Health-Justice Partnerships (HJPs), which Liz described in the video as an efficient, targeted and helpful way of assisting people to tackle the problems of both health care and justiciable issues that so often are intertwined in patients’/clients’ lives.  Liz differentiated ‘interdisciplinary student clinics’ (IDSCs) from MDPs — multi-disciplinary practices.  Student law clinics in MDPs tend to be limited and can go further with students fro different schools (nursing, medicine, teaching, social work etc).  In an IDSC all can be learning skills together first, and then moving into an advice setting once grounding was in place.  In IDSCs students learned by participating with other professionals, the problem-solving, the patterns of problems and assistance that could be offered.  She noted from her study in Bendigo, VIC it was shown that, as a result of HJPs, clients’ knowledge and confidence in engaging with the HJP increased by 90.9%.  Prior to HJPs, 40% of clients interviewed were deterred from seeking legal help due to poor experiences with lawyers or the legal system.  She quoted similarly very positive statistics.  There were also positive responses from health staff.   Levels of trust between the professionals and patients, responsiveness, and engagement, all increases by 87.5%.  Clients in HJP were getting better help and there were positive impacts, eg no drug relapse, reduced stress, and reductions in suicidal ideation were reported.  Liz’s aim is to see an interdisciplinary clinic for different fields of professional training at graduate and undergraduate level to break down barriers between professionals to improve social justice and health outcomes and in a model where, mindful of professional ethical boundaries and under ID supervision, students of different fields learn to work collaboratively to deliver holistic client care and reach those currently excluded.  Students often learn client interviewing, triage, peer2peer learning and the like.  Similarly, professionals can learn from each other.  Great projects, and a fine demonstration of the power and value of interdisciplinarity in the legal educational field.


Links to the complete slideset here:

Paul Maharg, Introduction

Craig Collins, ‘Story interface and strategic design for new law curricula

Kristoffer Greaves, ‘Computer-aided qualitative data analysis of social media for teachers and students in legal education

Scott Chamberlain, ‘Affordable software simulations for teaching legal practice‘.

Paul Maharg, ‘Disintermediation‘.


Learning/Technology Workshop, PEARL, ANU College of Law

March 16, 2017

Today we’ve got a session at ANU College of Law PEARL centre, entitled Learning/Technology in Legal Education.  The session is another version of the Society of Legal Scholars session held last year in St Catherine’s College, Oxford; but with two new speakers — Kristoffer Greaves, who wrote one of the articles in the original special […]

Read the full article →

Afterthoughts on Legal Education in Crisis

March 6, 2017

So a massively busy two days.  I was planning to sneak off at some point to see U of Chicago’s Laboratory Schools, and pay a quiet visit to the Dewey’s legacies there (he’s been much in my mind, being here, and I reread the late Laurel N. Tanner’s fine account before I came over), but […]

Read the full article →

Legal Education in Crisis? Workshop, Panel 5

March 6, 2017

Panel 5 was a Roundtable: Research Groups on Legal Education over a working lunch.  Beth Mertz was working us hard…  Present was the Association of American Law Schools (Jeff Allum, Pablo Molina).  Pablo introduced the services and media of AALS, including the Journal of Legal Education.  Jeff introduced the Before the JD project.   Next, the […]

Read the full article →

Legal Education Crisis? Workshop: Panel 3

March 5, 2017

Day two, and first up, John Bliss, ‘Becoming lawyers: mapping professional identity formation in the US and China’.  John gave an absorbing account of the reasons why students become certain lawyers, using identity maps – circles, where placing of roles and what the roles were etc, were crucial to understanding identity. Eg relations, particularly familial […]

Read the full article →

Legal Education in Crisis? Workshop, Panel 2

March 4, 2017

This panel focused on exploring external and internal aspects of law schools as institutions with structures and cultures of their own.  First up, Albert Yoon, ‘Scholarship and tenure in legal academia’.   The Law Review submission process — black box process.  Most disciplines have double or single blind systems of review — not so US […]

Read the full article →

Legal Education in Crisis? Workshop: Intro & Panel 1

March 4, 2017

At the behest of Beth Mertz I’m attending a two-day legal education workshop in Chicago – ‘Legal Education in Crisis? Bringing Researchers and Resources Together to Generate New Scientific Insights’.  I’ll be live-blogging the workshop.  More detail on it and the opening remarks below the fold.

Read the full article →
Follow me on