Using problem-based learning to teach company law

This case study, by Susan Bailey of Southampton Solent University, outlines the use of problem-based learning on a company law programme. Susan presented a paper, A problem-based learning approach to company law, based on her experiences at Learning in Law Annual Conferene 2004. To find out more contact Susan on e-mail:
Susan.Bailey@solent.ac.uk.

---

Together with a colleague I have been using a problem-based learning approach to teach company law at levels two and three of the LLB undergraduate programme at Southampton Institute since the 2002-03 academic year. The unit is still being developed and may be expanded across other subject areas.

Company law is delivered over 26 weeks as a ‘long thin unit’. The unit is an option and we have 55 students signed up this year. The aims of the unit are to develop:

• students’ understanding that real world problems do not come neatly packaged, as well as an ability to reflect on their own learning and to plan future tasks taking others’ perspectives into account
• students’ thinking skills, through working collaboratively in groups and problem solving
• oral communication skills, through group work and an individual viva
• students as independent learners

Contact time is two hours per week. Typically this would be described as a lecture and a seminar, however we do not use the ‘l’ word, as all the indications are that when students attend a lecture they put themselves into a certain mindset which precludes interaction.

Assessment

The unit is assessed in three ways:

1. Coursework, consisting of an individual reflective journal (50% of the weighting).
2. An oral examination lasting no more than 20 minutes, designed to check levels of subject understanding (40% of the weighting).
3. Individual contribution to board meetings – this area is causing us the most difficulty in terms of assessment criteria (10% of the weighting).

What do the students do?

Seminar sessions

Within certain constraints laid down by the course team the students form themselves into companies and boards of directors. They suffer and deal with various difficulties and novel situations during the life of the company and finally make the decision on how to close the company at the end of the year. Minutes of meetings are recorded and approved at subsequent meetings and action points are checked and updated. We encourage the chair and the minuting secretary to rotate.

The difficulties and situations the board has to face range from members of the board “going off on various frolics of their own” involving breaches of confidentiality, making secret profits and committing the company to contracts, to a shareholder making difficulties or simply asking for clarification of certain matters. All the companies suffer a serious loss of capital at some stage during the year.

The time at which the directors decide to call their first annual general meeting is within their discretion, as is the percentage shareholding they decide to give to the member of the unit team who decides to invest in their company. Students are responsible for all these aspects, as they would be if they were involved a company in the real world.

Large group sessions (not lectures)

I strive for student input into the academic underpinning of the decisions they take in the board meetings. I tend to use a Socratic approach to case studies and theories, as well as a constructive approach to the information that is being shared in the sessions. I break the students into small groups for quick discussion sessions on various aspects, with more than one group considering a topic so that they can assist one another. Feedback is recorded on a whiteboard, and concessions are made so that the development of understanding of the topic should become apparent. Understanding of the academic debates and issues is tied into the practical work undertaken in seminars through reflection in the journal.

In addition to this are the proposed company law reforms. In the 2003-04 academic year I have separated the reforms out and the students are addressing them as a reading week exercise, identifying which areas are key and noting against their programme of events where they need to be aware of proposed reforms. A further exercise on proposed reforms will be run in the second reading week.

Recommendations and observations

Key to the successful operation of this unit are the facilitation skills of the unit team and the introduction to the students of PBL techniques. I have undertaken an intensive facilitation development programme run by a company called Elements, as well as training to facilitate action learning sets, self managed learning sets and focus groups. The following were very helpful in developing the introductory material for students, however further injections of thinking skills will probably be needed before too long:

• Problem-based learning in the context of large classes (McMaster University, Canada)

We have found that a good pattern for the board meetings (seminar sessions) is to brainstorm the issues to see what is known, then to prioritise the information, work out what the directors actually know, decide what the directors need to find out, decide how they are going to go about finding out, divide up the tasks into who does what, and finally decide how the information is to be communicated.

We find this delivery method challenging and resource hungry in terms of the formative feedback we offer to students, however we also find it very exciting. We find that the students are motivated, which is good for attendance, and are generally enthusiastic for formative feedback. It is also possible for groups of students to develop at their own speed and to a certain extent to develop a deep engagement with topics of their choice within the syllabus, concentrating on some in greater depth than others. This encourages them to take more responsibility for their own learning.

Further reading

---

• De Bono E (1985) Six thinking hats Harmondsworth: Penguin
• Hinett K (2002) Improving learning through reflection (ILTHE members’ resource area) York: Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
• Moon J (1999) Reflections in learning and professional development London: Kogan Page * Moon J (1999) Learning journals London: Kogan Page
• Schon D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action Boston: Arena Publishing

Last Modified: 4 June 2010