Final parallel session. First up, Richard Hedlund (Lincoln University Law School) on ‘Modernising the (property law) curriculum at Lincoln Law School’. He focused on the direction and restraints he faced in his adaptations, having taught PBL at York U. Pedagogy wasn’t discussed much at Lincoln, and he tried to change that. There was spoon-feeding, and hypotheticals weren’t PBL, and not authentic, and little focus on skills, eg reading, writing and research. Little critical analysis in learning, and lack of alignment with the assessment where critical analysis was required. The restraints he faced: pedagogy innovation balanced against funding constraints, which in turn create larger student cohorts. Students seek degrees with some certainty of employment, so in the last few years Lincoln’s student body has tripled, and has an effect on the forms of education used, and student expectations (‘I want a degree as quickly and as painlessly as possible’). Richard gave us examples of how he coped with this environment, including focused, analytical seminar questions, comparative law questions, pieces to camera where actors acting as clients gave their problem, which improved assessment results because students were led into the critical analysis that they needed to practise in order to do well in the assessment.
Next, Ian Lee (HK Polytechnic University) on ‘Implementing the constructivist approach in legal education’. Ian did a study of constructivist learning approaches, where students take responsibility more for their learning, including their own scaffolding and self-regulation. Ian observed the key issue: avoiding student boredom and student anxiety, avoiding giving them too much assistance. In his study in semester 1 he adopted an instructivist approach, in semester 2, a constructivist approach to the Business Law course. IRAC was used as a common method between the two cohorts. He conducted interviews with students as well. He also used fading and transfer of responsibility. Results? Fascinating – lots of detail – and all of it proving the efficacy of the constructivist approach. The instructivist approach gave students little incentive to improve, and fewer tools to do that with. Really good study.
Finally, Ms Wai Ling Sonia Cheung (and Michael Lower & Paula Hodgson, CUHK), on ‘Student engagement: Learning analytics beyond the LMS’. This is a project about how staff can use analytics derived from courses. By learning analytics Sonia means ‘the use of data to describe student learning behaviour’. The LMS captures student use of the system over time. Students liked prompts for self assessments, and personalised and adaptive feedback. There was a ‘Retention Dashboard’ and a ‘Performance Dashboard’, showing data on student performance. and reports on student engagement, as well as what activities students undertake and when, as well as what content attracts students. There were similar data available on the videos that MIchael had made available for students. Anneka Ferguson asked at questions if the analytical data would be paired with assessment results. Sonia said that this was possible, and showed the graph. Interesting data project.
