First up, yours truly giving the second keynote, on legal education. Slides in the usual place at the Slides tab above, and can be downloaded from Slideshare. More of that at a later date.
In the paper sessions, it’s legal education time, and Claudy Op den Kamp (Bournemouth) is first up, on ‘”Collagementary” as a creative and (IP) learning tool’. Based on the use of film in legal education, and the constructive side of narrative in IP. Eg creative re-use of others’ footage. It’s in a BA(Hons) Film, focusing on film industries, business and entrepreneurship in the final year. Creativity involves intensely practical points, eg how long a shot should last. Budget – incidental inclusions… And in terms of preparation for industry, the fair dealing and copyright exceptions, for educational / non-commercial use. In more detail, second-year students on the BA (Hons) Film at Bournemouth University take the core unit Film Business, which explores film from the perspective of intellectual property (IP), and in which they learn about licensing, the historical development of intellectual property, and contemporary issues, such as piracy. The stress on IP is considered paramount in the creative and learning opportunities that creative reuse can offer to young filmmakers, and so for the unit’s assignment, students are required to make something new out of material created by others, and consider the intellectual property issues that are involved in that process. Super project, lots of absorbing detail in how to teach & learn IP using film and filmic online tools.
Next, ‘Technology-enhanced learning – Drawing on virtual learning experience during the pandemic and looking ahead’ with Julienne Jen, Vicci Lau, Alice Lee and Phoebe Woo, Hong Kong U. They reported on the findings of their pilot study on students’ perceptions of how virtual learning facilitated their learning of knowledge and skills (including problem-solving, drafting skills) and their interaction with peers and teachers. They also focused on whether students considered that the use of online classes should be continued, or whether certain online features should supplement face-to-face classes. 90% of students were in favour of online lectures, recorded. Re the effectiveness of online learning tools, see their slides below. Very interesting.
The group shared their results with their tutors, to help them inform their own practice. They also designed an e-learning guide and website. This consisted of a manual of e-learning tools, practical tips on pedagogical design and planning, and experience and examples. This to be availabel in HK, and internationally. Very interesting feedback project that also includes the design of feedforward not just to local tutors but globally to legal educators.
Next up, ‘On the teaching of design considerations for secure learning technologies supporting the right to object to data collection in schools’, Adriana Wilde, University of Winchester. She stated that assessing the attainment of learning outcomes in a no-prerequisites undergraduate module, called Secure Systems Architecture, presented many challenges and opportunities. In 2021-22 the brief was to design a secure system architecture for learning technology that supported the right to object to data collection in schools. The practical assessment encouraged creative solutions to practical issues. Students’ range of creativity was manifested in a variety of prototypes. This included interdisciplinary aspects of the use of learning technologies in schools supporting the right to object. Ariana showed a neat wee video addressed to school students letting them know about their rights. Nice project, well designed, good engaging products and on an area of law that school pupils needed to know a LOT about.
Then we turned to Stephen Crawford and Allison Holmes, U of Kent, Canterbury. ‘The agency of law lecturers and digital accessibility for disabled students: The possible impacts of a global pandemic.’ They began by saying that the development of legal education and the learning materials used is largely driven by the decisions of individual course convenors. They had a dual focus – both accessibility issues, and the support of students in accessibility issues. Re the agency of teaching staff, they considered pedagogical beliefs, individual experiences, and the effects of QA guidelines and professional standards. Good use of the research on disability, eg Critical Disability Studies, which recognise the individual nature of impairments to construct adequate responses. As they say in their abstract, prior to the Covid pandemic the tradition of legal education presented barriers to the design and implementation of digitally accessible content for disabled learners. This disciplinary inertia has been challenged by the recent necessity of online education, and the creative solutions which individual staff have developed. What is as yet unclear is the extent to which this can be understood as having had a positive impact upon the experiences of disabled learners, or what the interpretation of accessibility has been for individual law lecturers and module convenors. Recent trends in digital access have potentially raised new issues alongside addressing existing ones. This paper asks what influence has individual staff understanding and perception had upon the inclusion of digital accessibility for disabled learners as a result of the Covid pandemic? Good questions, good use of theory, good practical outcomes indicated.
Last up, Kryss Macleod, ‘What dreams may come: digital transformation in law as enabling critical pedagogy’, (Manchester Metropolitan University). As per her abstract, she examines how law schools might engage learners in the ongoing developments of legal tech and digital transformation, without reproducing disaffecting power structures. The route explored is to position the development and application of of technologies as a catalyst for change, in the synchronisation of the temporality of the fields of technology, law, legal education, and the legal profession. She deployed a critical approach (Freire, 1972) to empower learners, through examining the application of digital technologies that allows for a diversity of interests, contexts, and a renewed examination of what this could mean for (access to) justice and (access to) the profession. Fascinating focus on critical pedagogies and their use in the law school. She quotes Wang, Fenwick, Ireland et al, Ryan and Contreras on digital transformation of law and law schools. She approves the famous quote from Shaull in the Foreward to Freire’s book, which I remember from Transforming Legal Education – it’s a ringing statement of the need to abolish the idea of a neutral status of any education. I’d say the same goes for any technology, too, and I think Kryss would agree with that. She considered the drivers from the markets, including employability discourses, to the liberal law school model. She advocates in their stead ‘activist and agency pedagogies’ with elements of constructivism and critical pedagogy, to challenge the staus quo and promote a democratic and emancipatory learning context.’ Who could disagree with that, and I long since declared myself a Freire follower. But we need to make it clear that if the impoverished employability agenda is no answer, nor is the thin liberal law school model. In the face of massive digital capitalism, consumerism, the anxiety of influence (to turn Harold Bloom to late capitalism), the multiple pressures assailing HE and democratic polities, we need a new vision for law and justice. My concept of shifting from technocratic to civic professionalism, which Kryss quoted, is one way forward – but only one, and at the category of applied theory. I’d advocate, jurisprudentially, for a model of new realism in transformative pedagogy, as perTransforming and other texts. And for a contemporary ius commune of legal education
These were rivetting sessions. Loved them all. Good online chairing by Rory O’Boyle – always difficult in the hybrid model.