|
|
[Home] [Help] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Feedback] |
|
University of Technology, Sydney
|
Sharon Hunter-Taylor
1. INTRODUCTION
There have been several calls from educators for a reformulation of the paradigm from which professional legal education and training (‘PLT’) operates.[1] The imperative to change is heightened by the development of government and institutional policies relating to lifelong learning, explicit graduate capabilities, flexible, work-based and technology-based learning, together with the effects of globalisation, national admission standards, shifting professional boundaries and increases in student numbers and diversity.
This paper proposes that notwithstanding the pressure exerted by each of the above mentioned policies and developments, the greater challenge to professional legal educators and trainers is to develop and implement a more reflective, flexible and student-centred approach to professional legal education.[2]
A review of the literature, and personal experience as an educator within the field suggests that the type of learning involved in PLT ranges from instructive to interpretive approaches to learning. Where instructive approaches are adopted, the effective transmission of information by expert teachers is the focus. Interpretive approaches to learning involve a focus upon the individual learner’s understanding and recognise that each person understands differently.[3]
A paradigm shift on the part of individual educators and trainers may be required if they are to move from instructive approaches to learning to embrace interpretive approaches to learning. In order to achieve this shift, educators and trainers in practical legal education need to be more reflective and critical of their own practice and actively participate in the implementation of policy changes.
Critical theory together with the economic and cultural contexts of learning is relevant to a broader perspective on PLT. A critical and reflective approach to educational practice that includes reflection, dialogue, scholarship and research would require educators and trainers to understand and evaluate the relevant pedagogical theories. In the context of PLT this will entail an examination and evaluation of educational theory about autonomous learning and flexibility and the paradigm within which these are implemented. In particular, this will require consideration of the traditional dichotomous approaches to knowledge and skills.
An understanding of pedagogical theory also enables an awareness of how those theories might be deployed to further purposes that that are incompatible with good teaching and learning. The ‘managerialist model of change’ in higher education provides the framework within which decisions about the implementation of policy based upon the above mentioned theories is made and underpins much of the rhetoric in relation to the educational policies considered in this paper. Given that the ‘managerialist’ model of change stresses the ‘guiding role of senior managers in pulling the levers of change and in so doing ‘changing the essence’...of their organisation, particularly its culture’[4] it is natural that educators and trainers within PLT might be resistant to policies implemented under this model. However, a resistant or passive approach to change does little to further a shift towards a reflective, flexible and student-centred approach to teaching and learning or to resolve the challenges posed by increasing workloads and the resources required to implement new teaching and learning policies. Cultural and organisational changes that dissolve this tension are required before the effective navigation of change can take place.
An informed approach to pedagogy and critical participation in its implementation would improve teaching and learning through the development of sustainable theoretical frameworks for teaching and learning that recognise the importance of good university teaching and the resources required for its development. It would also balance stakeholder interests in the provision of PLT. The stakeholders in professional legal education are: the legal profession as employers of practitioners; admitting bodies; the community; practitioners; courts and tribunals; educational and training institutions; students; teachers and trainers; and clients.
An holistic approach to analysis takes into account personal, interpersonal, institutional, social and historical contexts[5] as they apply to these stakeholders. This paper focuses upon the institutional and historical contexts of change within PLT and, though their importance is acknowledged, does not critique the personal, interpersonal and social contexts.
2. AN OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLT IN AUSTRALIA
PLT is a relatively new subdivision in legal education.[6] The current thinking about PLT has been formed in response to reports from committees[7] by the peak organisational body, the Australasian Professional Legal Education Council (‘APLEC’), and individual educators’ conference papers and articles published in the Australian Journal of Professional Legal Education.
The influence of formal committee reports was instrumental in the inception of PLT. In 1964 the Martin Committee Report[8] expressed dissatisfaction with the articles system and proposed the introduction of formal programs of professional legal training or practical legal training.[9] The Martin Committee envisaged that this training would be separate and distinct from undergraduate studies and follow the academic degree.[10]
The College of Law was the first professional legal training program to be established in NSW. It was established by resolution of the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales in 1972 and was initially funded by the New South Wales Solicitors Trust Account Fund. The adoption of a
formal program of education in place of the articles program as the means of satisfying admission standards was completed by the alteration of the New South Wales Supreme Court Rules relating to the admission of solicitors.[11]
The foregoing establishes the context for the establishment of formal programs of professional legal training, namely to provide the profession with competent practitioners[12] as defined by admission standards. The Bowen Report[13] provides a broad view of the aims of PLT. It states that it should provide:
some quite general intellectual skills of comprehensive of legal and non legal material, of logical reasoning, analysis and critical thought and of perception of relevant law and facts... The skills should ideally extend to an ability to...make judgements about appropriate courses of action.[14]
How these aims might be achieved has been the subject of debate amongst educators and trainers and experimentation within PLT programs. In response to the need for a framework for discussion and research APLEC was formed in 1974 and by 1999 represented 13 courses across Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. The Australian Journal of Professional Legal Education was an initiative of APLEC committee members and was first published in 1983[15] and provides a forum for the publication academic papers within the field.
APLEC has been instrumental in the development of competency standards[16] for PLT. The competency standards form a benchmark for Legal Practitioners Admission Board[17] approval of courses and for admission to practice. In addition to their role of professional standard setting the competency standards provide an important economic gateway for practitioners and educational institutions.
The College of Law’s 1975 proposal identified its objective as being to ‘...produce lawyers well equipped with basic professional skills and methods to permit immediate and effective participation in the practice of a solicitor’.[18] This objective was to be achieved through students participating in a series of structured skills and transaction based activities, a focus appears to have been retained within the curricula of PLT programs. Aside from impacting upon the learning tasks employed in PLT, this objective gives some indication of who the dominant stakeholders in the provision of PLT might be.
The interchangeable use of the words ‘professional’ and ‘practical’ in describing PLT is significant given the connotations that arise from each term. Chay observes that there are differing views within the profession regarding what PLT can achieve: some practitioners believe that PLT training can provide skills and knowledge for basic legal transactions and procedures; and others believe that it can achieve general problem solving skills.[19] According to Chay, this dichotomy leads to a divide between curricula based on tasks and curricula based on skills. Influential writers in the field have recommended different approaches to skills development[20] the outcomes of which have not always been successful. An alternative explanation for the schism between knowledge and skills (or mind/body dichotomy) maintained in professional and undergraduate legal education that is explored herein.
The distinction between higher education and professional training has been maintained notwithstanding that universities have joined training institutions such as the College of Law as providers of PLT. Although it has been argued that professional education is different to higher education,[21] the introduction of flexible pathways and work-based education have left the boundaries between PLT and higher education within the university setting less distinct. The potential for an integrated approach to undergraduate and professional education and the relevance of the wider literature pertaining to adult education and training is implicated by the blurring of this distinction.
There are however two important distinctions between higher education and professional training that remain and these have bearing upon the culture of PLT. The first distinction is that is that educators and trainers within PLT are likely to be experienced practitioners who have entered the field of education and training as an alternative career. This background brings with it a tendency to replicate the procedures and processes of practice in linear, teacher-centred face-to-face teaching. The second distinction is that educators and trainers within PLT are increasingly employed on a fixed term teaching only contract. As a result, their motivation to undertake research into teaching and learning and to participate in program implementation may at best be limited.
The resolution of these distinctions is desirable and would be made possible by a paradigm shift in relation to teaching and learning within PLT together with cultural and organisational change. An understanding of the relevant pedagogical theories and the rhetoric surrounding their implementation would both enable a paradigm shift on the part of educators trainers and provide the fuel for an debate between educators and administrators about the underlying purposes of pedagogical policy implementation.
3. REVIEW OF PEDAGOGICAL THEORY AND CRITIQUE OF POLICY AND PRACTICE
Conceptions of good teaching
Much has been written about what constitutes good university teaching.[22] It is generally accepted that good university teaching involves a student-focused as opposed to teacher-focused approach to teaching and learning. Teacher-focused strategies focus upon transmitting knowledge to learners whereas student focussed strategies focus upon ‘...bringing about conceptual change in student’s understanding of the world’ and upon ‘...what students do to achieve understanding...not what teachers do’.[23]
An educator’s view of what constitutes good teaching within the context of their personal practice will depend on their own conceptions of teaching and their awareness of those conceptions.[24] Biggs offers a three level approach to understanding different conceptions of teaching that explicitly recognises the teacher’s perspective of student learning and the teacher’s role in relation to that experience.[25]
A consideration of teacher conceptions provides a useful means by
which individual educators might identify their own implicit and espoused theories. To this end the instructive, interpretive and critical approaches to teaching and learning are considered below together with the theories underpinning self-directed and flexible learning and their relevance to PLT examined.
Instructive approaches to teaching and learning
Professional education tends to be characterised by ‘a liberal focus on the importance of programs transmitting knowledge to learners’.[26] This focus is characteristic of transmission based or instructive approaches to teaching and learning. Research is required in order to determine the actual incidence of instructive approaches to learning in PLT courses in Australasia. It is however likely that instructive approaches to teaching and learning are widespread given the common theme underpinning PLT teaching of providing students with the knowledge and skills they need before they began to practice.
According to Foley, instructive approaches to learning are justified by an argument that competent students once in practice would be able to apply the theory they had been taught in practical situations.[27] In this way, the students who are suited to legal practice are sorted from those who are not. This idea is similar to the philosophy behind Biggs’ first level of teacher understanding, that is, that learning is ‘primarily a direct result of individual differences between students’ which gives rise to the teacher’s role in sorting out the good from the not so good students.[28]
The use of traditional competency based learning in PLT is also indicative of transmission based learning because of its ‘assumption that knowledge and skills can be reduced to their component parts and then taught to learners’.[29] The use of competency standards can also be indicative of the ‘hijacking’ of professional training by one stakeholder.[30] By definition, a reflective, sustainable and holistic pedagogical paradigm would require an inclusive approach to the needs of all stakeholders. Whether one stakeholder has in fact influenced program development in PLT and its implementation to its own ends[31] is however, a matter for further research.
According to Ramsden, ‘information transmission is a meaningless metaphor as far as teaching and learning are concerned. Students have to make sense of information themselves if they are to learn anything’.[32] In making sense of information students integrate their learning in an holistic manner that goes some way towards enabling it’s future application in a responsive and reflective manner. This is important because ‘work situations are complex and fluid: they do not sit and wait for theories to be applied to them’.[33] Students learning within transmission based programs may not be able to make the connections between their knowledge, experience and skills that are necessary for the effective application of their learning in the workplace.
Instructive approaches to teaching and learning are aligned with the discourse of skills and knowledge as separate areas of learning and as such reflect a dualistic ‘privileging of mind over body, and hence a pre-occupation with transmission of knowledge, while overlooking process’.[34] Brockbank and McGill refer to the mind/body split as a dualistic eighteenth century solution to the need to separate the higher domain of the mind from the lower domain of the body thus enabling the divine soul to inhabit a material body.[35]It is a useful metaphore.
We see the mind/body split manifested in the traditional separation of theory and practice in legal education which feminist theory is working towards bridging. Medical research by neuroscientist, Candice Pert[36] has confirmed the relevance of this bridging and proven inadequate our former conception of where the mind might reside.[37]
The distinction between doing and thinking embodied in the mind/body split and the resolution of this split towards an holistic view of learning, being and doing presents an opportunity for rich insights into what lawyering is really about and challenges the way we think about the development of expertise. A commitment to reflective practice in pedagogy may be the first step in identifying where the dualism of mind and body is carried into educators’ practice and its ultimate elimination.[38]
Considerable research, experimentation and debate have been undertaken within PLT in the pursuit of an optimum approach to the development of skills and acquisition of knowledge. A reflective approach to learning would necessitate an integrated and holistic approach that did not separate skills and knowledge within learning processes.
Reflective learning
Transmission based education relies upon the expertise of the teacher and as a result does little to empower the individual learner.[39] In contrast, the individual learner’s empowerment is seen as pivotal to the learning process within the interpretive or reflective approach to learning. Heron states that ‘learning itself is necessarily autonomous, that is, self-directed: it is constituted by interest, commitment, understanding in practice. Each of these is self-generated—they are negated or distorted by any attempt to instill or impose them’.[40]
Reflective learning is a student-centred form of teaching that aspires towards the personal development of learners.[41] Reflection in this paper is intended to mean an holistic process ‘which values the senses, recognises emotions and draws in personal experience through dialogue’.[42] When understood in this way reflection overcomes western notions of the mind/body split to incorporate emotional responsiveness and intelligence. Reflective learning requires a facilitative approach on the part of educators and trainers to that development notwithstanding the authority inherent within their positions.[43]
Reflective learning within PLT would require an acknowledgement of the important transition student’s experience entering professional education. This transition involves ‘a change in how self, others, authority and knowledge are understood’.[44] This acknowledgement would be consistent with Ramsden’s statement that learning ‘should be about changing the ways in which learners understand or experience or conceptualise the world around them’.[45]
The implementation of reflective learning within PLT would necessitate the elimination of teaching and learning strategies based upon the transmission of information and the introduction of strategies that require students to reflect upon their technical, practical and professional learning in a meaningful manner. The effectiveness of PLT’s emphasis on students ‘doing’ transactional and skills based tasks might be increased by introducing the requirement that students direct their own learning in relation to those tasks and reflect upon their learning experiences guided by explicit and holistic learning objectives. In this way, a student centred, facilitatory approach to teaching and learning would be introduced in place of one based on teacher-centred control.
Critical reflection
The critical learning model is more concerned with the social context of learning than the different conceptions and ways of understanding of the individual learner.[46] In this respect, critical learning has relevance to the development of educator’s frameworks about their teaching and to the development of empowering strategies in response to change.
It may not be appropriate to encourage critical approaches to learning discipline knowledge in a professional course. This is especially so given the short time frame within which professional legal training is conducted and the fact that students are likely to have engaged in critical analysis of their discipline knowledge during undergraduate studies. Durie’s observations that critical pedagogy is overly interventionist and prescriptive[47] is relevant to the likely resistance to critical learning in PLT. Research is likely to show that key stakeholders would not embrace emanciaptory approaches to learning.
However, a ‘move beyond a narrow interpretation of critical thinking, ‘being confined largely to its place in relation to formal knowledge’ ... and to include and embrace critical self-reflective (the self) and critical action (the world)’[48] would ensure the relevance and effectiveness of critically reflective learning within PLT.
Critical reflection of teaching practices
Implicit within the adoption of reflective and critically reflective approaches to learning is the requirement that teachers themselves become reflective practitioners.[49] Through reflection, educators and trainers can become aware of their implicit knowledge as well as their informal theories that come from professional practice.[50] In this respect, a critical theory approach to the task of praxis, combining theory and practice in order to create knowledge along with reflective dialogue are relevant to PLT.
Reflection also enables us to recognise our paradigms. When an educator is unaware of their own personal conception of teaching their espoused theory may be different to the one that they practice.[51] What might occur is ‘modeling’, that is adopting the approaches to teaching and learning that teachers themselves experienced as students at university.[52] When modeling occurs a teacher’s espoused theory might be interpretive but their practice may involve unconscious instructive approaches.[53]
Critical learning is also relevant to the implementation of educational policy at the ‘ground level’ by educators and to reflective critical dialogue in this process. Once teachers are aware of their own paradigm in relation to teaching and learning an examination of the discourses underlying the policies that affect their practice may then be undertaken as a means of surfacing their sometimes hidden meanings.
The process of critical reflection provides a useful means of gaining an understanding of educational theories relating to self-directed and flexible learning that currently impact upon PLT course design and may also contribute to the development of more holistic theoretical frameworks for their implementation.
Self-directed learning
The discourse of self-directed or autonomous learning is based upon the principles of individual independence, lifelong learning, adaptability, resourcefulness and personal initiative. These qualities are thought to be of increasing relevance in a changing world[54]. In particular, research undertaken by Taylor in the UK indicates that students who develop the ability to learn independently and interdependently do transfer their skills into practice[55].
Self-directed learning can however, be presented as a justification for economic rationalisation especially a reduction in staff to student ratios. In this latter scenario, the basis for adopting teaching and learning strategies that promote self-directed or autonomous is ‘ cost cutting reflective of political struggles rather than a positive choice for change in the interests of the learner and professional education’.[56] If self-directed learning is interpreted as a ‘go away and get on with it’ strategy that enables greater numbers of students per teacher without stretching and challenging students conceptions and understandings, the quality of learning will be reduced.57
Nevertheless, resource constraints in higher education mean that realistic strategies for effective teaching and learning need to be developed. Practitioners who choose to embrace self-directed or autonomous learning as a theory that might assist students in achieving meaningful learning are not faced with an easy task.[58] Traditional approaches to academic workloads recognise face to face teacher controlled teaching environments and the discourse of self-directed learning can be misused to denigrate the facilitation of learning to nothing more than an administrative task. Unsustainable workloads may be also justified if administrators adopt this ‘re-framing’ of teaching roles. Further, educators may need to ‘retrain’ students who are used to the ‘telling’ mode of teaching and are therefore unaccustomed to self-directed learning.[59]
Flexible learning
Self-directed learning is often associated with open or distance learning
and these together understood as being synonymous with flexible learn- ing. Within the context of tertiary education flexibility ‘has a number of possible meanings: flexibility as a competence or characteristic acquired through education; curricular flexibility; flexible delivery; or flexibility of pathways’.[60]
On one view, the discourse of flexibility is based upon the diverse and contextual nature of individual learners needs and the provision of appropriately flexible teaching and learning strategies to meet those needs and thus enable and encourage all students to take deep approaches to learning.[61] From this perspective the discourse is especially relevant to the diverse student body within PLT.
Another view is that flexible learning is based upon the need to produce graduates who have flexibility as a personal quality, that is, ‘being more adaptable and versatile’ and having ‘a variety of transferable skills’[62]. This discourse can be confusing as it ‘often...merges with the language of technologisation, marketisation and managerialsim, all of which contribute to ‘flexibility’ in their different ways’[63] but may not in fact produce flexibility as a personal characteristic.[64]
On either view, the implementation of flexible learning policies is likely to enable students to take deeper approaches to learning. Further, ‘the notion of flexible and creative learners with certain degrees of autonomy in how they define and achieve their goals, individually and as part of different communities of practice with the capacity to engage with others’ [65] may be achieved to the satisfaction and benefit of a greater range of stakeholders in PLT.
Edwards and Nicolls warn that there is however, a potential for flexible learning to become ‘part of a rhetorical strategy through which attempted change is governed, wherein ‘inflexibility’ and ‘flexibility’ are invested respectively with negative and positive values, the latter constituted as the ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ of the former. Evidence conflicting with this perspective including evidence on its cost-effectiveness is strategically ignored, rubbished or displaced’.[66] Managerialism in education and the commodification of education are likely influences behind such a strategy.
However the impetus for self-directed and flexible learning is defined, it is clear that to be effective, flexible learning needs to be implemented with careful regard to resourcing, organisational culture, staff development and security.[67] These factors are considered below.
5. CULTURAL AND ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE
Anecdotal evidence suggests that significant investments in technology based learning have already been made by several universities and college providers of PLT. The justification of this investment will necessitate changes to teaching and learning strategies [68]so that the gains in cost-effectiveness promised by technology based learning can be achieved.[69] How the re-organisation of education takes place will depend upon the culture of each educational institution including its leadership and ground level responses to change. The process of change unless managed carefully can lead to insecurity on the part of educators and trainers.[70] To counter this, renewal has been proposed as a tool for navigating change in place of resistance and passivity.
The proposal that educators and trainers adopt active approaches to implementing change is made with a view to transforming policies, through critical reflection and dialogue, that might otherwise detract from quality approaches to teaching and learning. In this way policy implementation may be informed and enable meaningful learning to take place. It has been argued that meaningful learning is more likely to take place where interpretive approaches to learning are adopted in place of instructive approaches to learning. This requires a transition on the part of teachers to a facilitatory role which ‘is dramatically different from traditional teaching, and may imply for some, a paradigm shift’.[71]
Appropriate ‘departmental, faculty and institutional support’ is required in order for such a shift to take place together with opportunities for educators and trainers to engage in reflective dialogue.[72] In the absence of this support and a team-based engagement in the process of change early adopters of flexible and technology-based learning may emerge as ‘star performers’ or ‘lone rangers’.[73] The danger in this scenario arises from a potential for change and growth to be unsustainable and also for late adopters to become isolated and dis-empowered in the process of change.[74]
It has also been proposed that educators might be empowered through participation in the process of policy implementation by adopting critically reflective approaches to their own practice and in this way provide effective models for student learning. The challenge for PLT is therefore to develop teaching and learning strategies within the framework of flexible and distance delivery, that facilitate critical reflection. If this is to occur, it is likely that discussion among small group and individual academics in reconstructing policy will be important. In this respect there is a need to actively involve ground level academics in leadership.[75]
Whether academics will participate in such a process will depend upon cultural and organisational factors that will be specific to each teaching institution. Dewey noted that ‘the higher institutions are freighted with a definite body of tradition’.[76] Where that tradition includes passive responses to change[77] on the part of educators and trainers the active transformation of policy at the ground level is less likely to take place.
Another reason why academics might not participate in such a process is ‘that teaching and the promotion of learning has not rated the significance that is attached to research and recognition in the discipline upon which academic career advance depends’.[78] Referring to change in higher education Scott advises that ‘overall, if people find that the cost to them continues to be outweighed by the benefit they are more likely to persevere with a change effort. If the opposite holds they will disengage’.[79] Hence the importance of recognising scholarship of teaching in PLT.
Finally, many educators and trainers perceive that they are already overworked and attempts to encourage involvement in critical analysis and reflective processes may be resisted or sidestepped by staff who are already busy enough. Explicit statements about policy values also tend to be seen as motherhood statements and not applicable to the reality of day to day teaching practice. This raises management issues relating to leadership, equitable allocation of workloads and recognition of efforts and achievements that are beyond the scope of this paper.
6. CONCLUSION
The initial inquiry that became the subject of this paper arose from a workplace concern for the social and career implications that may arise as a result of the implementation of flexible learning strategies. I perceived a need to initiate a more egalitarian approach to teaching and learning about the practice of law where teachers and graduate lawyers learn and develop.
An alternative purpose for the paper emerged during its construction, namely to survey the bigger picture as it relates to pedagogical issues in professional legal education. The benefit of such a survey might be as Scott states:
that, once they come to see the bigger picture and understand how the many pieces which make up the change puzzle are interconnected, educators feel less the victims of powerful and mysterious forces and more confident about what to do when change is in the air.[80]
Aside from empowerment through understanding, educators and trainers are able to play a direct role in the process of policy implementation by participating at the ground level. To do this they need to be informed, and committed to active involvement. An awareness of the relevant discourses is essential to this process as is the balancing of stakeholder interests and the resolution of the skills knowledge divide. Participation is however, likely to bring with it cultural and organisational change including a paradigm shift in relation to approaches to teaching and learning which challenge the status quo. For this reason, unless appropriate leadership and institutional support are in place, participation in the process of change may be resisted.
[1]See Nathanson, S., ‘Challenging Culture to Teach Problem Solving Skills’, The Journal of Professional Legal Education (1996) Vol 14, No 2:143; Gold, N., Tomorrows Legal Services: Facilitating Change to Serve the Future, (1996) Vol 1 APLEC Conference papers, 3; and, Lamb, A., Balmford, R., Roper, C., Loftus, E., & Chay, A., APLEC 25 years on — A Retrospective, unpublished paper presented, p.Australasian Professional Legal Education Council Conference November, 1999.
[2]I am indebted to Professor Terry Carney, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney who reviewed the original manuscript for his detailed critique and in particular his suggestions regarding the theme and structure of this paper.
[3]Foley, G., Ed., Understanding Adult Education and Training. 2nd Edition. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2000, p.p.4.
[4]Trowler, P., Academics Responding to Change, New Higher Education Frameworks and Academic Cultures, Society for Research Into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham, 1998, p.p.2.
[5]Foley Ibid, p.11.
[6]Chay, A., ‘How might the concept of illness scripts inform curriculum issues in practical legal training?’ paper presented, p.Australasian Professional Legal Education Council Conference November, 1999, p.11.
[7]Chay Ibid, p.6.
[8]Report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia to the Australian Universities Commission, August 1964 (known as the Martin Committee Report).
[9]Monahan, G., Practical Legal Training Background Paper, paper presented, p.Australasian Legal Education Forum of Australasian Law Teachers Association, 5-6 July, 1996 [2.2]. According to Monahan, this reform was also recommended by the Final Report of the Committee of Legal Education and Training in the United Kingdom (known as the Ormrod Committee Report), H.M Stationery Office.
[10]Monahan Ibid [2.3].
[11]Monahan loc cit.
[12]Chay Ibid, p.8.
[13]Committee of Inquiry into Legal Education in New South Wales (1979). Legal Education in New South Wales: Report of Committee of Inquiry. New South Wales: Government Printer. (‘The Bowen Report’).
[14]Cited in Chay Ibid, p.7.
[15]For background on the Australian Journal of Professional Legal Education see in general Lamb et al. Ibid & Chay Ibid.
[16]In 1997 APLEC developed Standards for the Vocational Preparation of Australian Legal Practitioners in response to the Law Council’s Blueprint for the Structure of the Legal Professional and the Priestley Committee’s adoption of the Priestley 12.
[17]APLEC is represented in the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (‘the Priestley Committee’).
[18]cited in Monahan Ibid, p.24.
[19]Chay Ibid, p.8.
[20]Chay Ibid, p.9.
[21]See Taylor, I., Developing Learning in Professional Education, Partnerships for Practice, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham, 1997.
[22]See for example Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E., & Clarke, S., Recognising and Rewarding Good Teaching in Australian Higher Education. A project commissioned by the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching, 1995. See also Ramsden, P., Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge: London, 1992; Biggs, J., ‘What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning’, (1999) 18 (1) Higher Education Research & Development, 57-74; and Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K., Understanding Learning and Teaching, The Experience in Higher Education, Society for Research Into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham, 1999.
[23]Biggs Ibid, p.61.
[24]See Foley Ibid; Ramsden Ibid, Brockbank, A., & McGill, I., Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, Society for Research Into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham, 1998; and Biggs Ibid.
[25]Biggs loc cit.
[26]Foley Ibid, p.5.
[27]Foley Ibid, p.7.
[28]Biggs Ibid, p.61.
[29]Foley Ibid,p.156.
[30]Taylor Ibid, p.17.
[31]On this see Sissel, P.A., ‘Participation and learning in head start: a sociopolitical analysis’, (1997) 47, Adult Education Quarterly, 123-137.
[32]Ramsden Ibid, p.155.
[33]Foley Ibid, p.7-8.
[34]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.30.
[35]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.20-21.
[36]Pert, C., Keynote Conference Address in Gawler, I., Ed, 1997, Science Passion and Healing: The Relationship Between Mind, Immunity and Health. Gawler Foundation: Yarra Junction.
[37]Thornton, M., ‘The Development of Feminist Jurisprudence’, (1998) 9 (2), Legal Education Review, p.172.
[38]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.30-31.
[39]Taylor Ibid, p.7
[40]Heron, J., The Politics of Facilitation, Unpublished paper, p.1.
[41]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.4.
[42]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.83.
[43]Heron loc cit.
[44]Miriam Taylor 1986 in Taylor Ibid, p.23-24.
[45]Ramsden Ibid, p.4.
[46]Foley Ibid, p.19.
[47]See Durie, J., ‘Emancipatory education and classroom practice: a feminist post-structuralist perspective’, (1996) 18 (2), Studies in Continuing Education, 135-146.
[48]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.51.
[49]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.69.
[50]See Schon, D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, London: Temple Smith, 1983; and, Boud, D., Keogh, R., and Walker, D., ‘Promoting Reflection in Learning: a Model’ in Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. New York: Kogan Page, 1985.
[51]Foley Ibid, Brockbank et al. Ibid.
[52]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.63.
[53]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.30.
[54]Taylor Ibid, p.5-6. See also Fraser, S., & Deane, E., ‘Why Open Learning?’ (1997) 1 Australian Universities Review, 25-31; and Chalkey, B., ‘Flexible Learning or Learning to be Flexible’, in Bell, Bowden and Trott eds., Implementing Flexible Learning. Kogan Page: London, 1997, p.15-23.
[55]Taylor Ibid, p.8.
[56]Taylor Ibid, p.9.
[57]Foley Ibid, p.47 and Chalkey Ibid, p.21.
[58]Foley Ibid, p.47.
[59]Foley loc cit.
[60]Raffe 1996 cited in Edwards, R., and Nicoll, K., 2000 ‘Flexible Learning For Adults’ in Foley, G., Ed., Understanding Adult Education and Training. 2nd Ed. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2000, p.129.
[61]See Fraser & Deane Ibid; Chalkey Ibid; and Ramsden Ibid .
[62]Chalkey Ibid, p.15.
[63]Edwards and Nicolls Ibid, p.127.
[64]Chalkey Ibid.
[65]Edwards and Nicolls Ibid, p.139.
[66]Edwards and Nicolls Ibid, p.128.
[67]Bates, A., Managing Technological Change, Strategies for College and University Leaders. Jossey-Bass Publishers:San Francisco, 1999. See also Edwards and Nicolls Ibid.
[68]Bates Ibid, p.6.
[69]Bates Ibid, p.1.
[70]Foley Ibid, p.130.
[71]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.54.
[72]Brockbank et al. Ibid, p.55.
[73]On the concept of ‘lone rangers’ see Bates Ibid, p.2.
[74]Indeed, it likely that, p.this time, most educators and trainers find themselves responding to this change rather than promoting it. See McNamara, L, ‘Lecturing (and not Lecturing) Using the Web: Developing a Teaching Strategy for Web-based Lectures’ in Legal Education Review (2001) 11 (2) p.150.
[75]Trowler Ibid p.126.
[76]cited in Brockbank et al. Ibid p.91.
[77]Trowler Ibid p.3.
[78]Brockbank et al. Ibid p.92, see also Prosser and Trigwell Ibid.
[79]Scott, G., Change Matters, Making a difference in education and training. Allen & Unwin: Sydney, 1999 p.13.