First up, Jenny Gibbons on ‘Curriculum as constitution’. Fascinating analogy, which I’ve explored elsewhere.[1] She started with Fortnite Island. To play the game you need to:
- learn the rules of the game
- know how to find and use yr materials
- take time to create safe spaces
- learn to maximise yr advantage in encounters
- learn from experts
- practise practise practise
Isn’t this what we tell students to do on the LLB, she asked? Our role is to create the territory and the rules of the game on the LLB. Jenny then compared the English and Canadian constitutions, and went on to describe the differences between the (undergrad) English LLB, and the (postgrad) Canadian JD. Comparative constitutionalism could illuminate comparative education. Eg: dictionary definition:
A [constitution/curriculum’ is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents accroing to which a [state/law school’ or other organisation is governed.
She also quoted Bryce on ‘flexible constitutions’ and ‘rigid constitutions’. And Saunders:
One of the principal catalysts for constitutional convergence is the influence of international law on constitutional systems
She observed we need to learn from the Canadians on localised autonomy, and that convergence needn’t mean a standardised education (hope I got that last point right…). Good ideas and comparisons, very suggestive. I think that what she described re Fortnite Island applies to the quite different contexts of Second Life, and also to earlier games such as World of Warcraft. I’ve talked before about Ardcalloch and the use of online fictive spaces for legal learning.
Next, Rob Stokes on ‘Reconciling competing demands: the opportunities of authentic assessment in law’. What can authentic assessment do? It can square the circle of liberal education and vocational education. It can engage students, enhance outcomes and employability, and focuses the teacher on what she wants students to do with the law. His definition of authentic assessment? An assessment that evaluates the sorts of tasks that a student would be asked to do after graduation. Not sure that I agree with that entirely – my co-authored article here pointed out the problems inherent in authenticity as a mimesis of reality. He described his module on Commercial Law and its assessment. If I have it right, it comprises a briefing 10 days before an open book examination over two hours long; so there is a degree of uncertainty built into the work that students undertake, with complexity of thinking, deal with new materials and issues, built upon the spine of the legal issues. Not a single-shot memory test, with regurgitation of material. Interesting assessment.
Next Doug Morrison on ‘The SQE and creativity: A race to the bottom?’. He talked of his experience of using MCQs in a Medical Law elective at level 5, during 2016-17. The driver was self-marking and less labour- intensive than conventional assessments, and gave students fast feedback. He tentatively mapped the team’s experience with MCQs to the SQE1. On his module he deals with ethics, consent, judicial review, with theoretical frameworks, eg feminist. MCQs covered this sort of content, the first six weeks of the course. There were 15 questions to be completed in 40 minutes. Formats included one correct item, more than one correct item. Results? Anecdotal student comments – the format didn’t work for them. Alternative forms of assessment? Poster Presentation. It was felt it would enable students to represent their knowledge and skills in a much more resonant context (my description). Module was re-written, lecture & workshops on poster presentations incorporated, ethical principles contextualised to each topic, guidance given. In terms of creativity and expression of knowledge, remarkable and positive results. Wide range in formats, and students would happily talk round their areas with confidence & pride. Student feedback was obtained – lots of positive comment.
Finally, Emma Jones, ‘Affective or defective? Exploring the LETR’s characterisation of affect and its translation into practice.’ She noted that LETR didn’t define affect, true; but I’d say that affect was used variously because we were drawing upon a wide variety of literatures where the term was defined in different ways, eg 4.60 onwards in our report; and at 4.83 we do analyse the affect/moral dimensions of professional practice (esp 4.94); and the extension of assessment into the affect domain – 4.140. Emma noted this, and praised it. But said that the adjacency of moral and affective domains wasn’t explained well. She took the example of empathy – is it always a good thing? Nussbaum’s example quoted by Emma is the torturer whose empathy with the victim makes the torturer more effective. Good points, but again, context of our construction needs to be taken into account.
She pointed out the value of LETR’s emphasis on emotional competence (possibly capability? just a thought…) but argued for more interdisciplinary collaboration and research, and a wider cultural shift involving legal education and training, practice and regulation. Emma gave good examples of the interdisciplinary perspectives that mental health practitioners can bring to bear on legal education. Very good presentation. Balanced and thought-provoking.
And that was that. I had to miss Tony Bradley’s plenary, heading off for a train from here in Leeds down to Exeter Law School to give a seminar there tomorrow. Will post reflections on this very interesting event in the next few days or so, once I’ve had time to gather my thoughts.