Developing reflection and autonomy in law

Fully Booked

24 April 2003

This seminar, building on the work of UKCLE’s personal development planning working group, explored how reflective and critical skills are currently being developed and assessed in UK law schools, looking at the use of portfolios, reflective logs and personal development plans.

Sue Prince (University of Exeter), co-ordinator of the working group, opened the seminar by explaining that in her experience people range in their attitudes towards personal development planning (PDP). They begin as non-committed, become embryonic and move on to an advanced understanding. The UKCLE working group comprises people at all three stages. Sue finished her introduction by drawing broad conclusions from some research conducted with heads of university law schools.

Norman Jackson (LTSN Generic Centre) discussed why autonomy in learning is important and the challenges the development of learner autonomy raises for both teachers and learners. He invited participants to offer their definitions of autonomy – these included self, independence, responsibility, space, ownership, respect, control, freedom, clarity, style, motivation and confidence. Norman offered the view that PDP can result in improved practical and cognitive skills, self identity/affective outcomes, attitudes to learning and reflection, knowledge of learning styles, autonomy and achievement.

Karen Hinett (UKCLE) discussed how reflection in learning could be supported. She maintained that issues of purpose, context and resources should be considered when implementing PDP. In particular, staff should be asking questions such as: What do you want your students to be able to do? What skills should they develop? What level is the module or course? What level of sophisticated reflection should you expect? Do you want to involve an external advisor or practitioner in moderating reflection? Will other members of your department support you?

Karen also suggested that attention be given to the following issues:

• aligning learning, teaching and assessment – learning outcomes help lecturers and students to understand how a programme will assist learning over time. They help students to know what is expected and provide a clear framework against which students success can be measured. Specified outcomes that include elements of reflection can also aid the process of quality enhancement, by illustrating how general intellectual skills such as evaluation are developed.
• assessing reflection – there is a wealth of research which supports the view that students only take seriously those elements of a course which are assessed (see Boud 1995, Knight 2002). Assessing the evidence of reflection, for example the journal, diary or advice given to a client, can be achieved by using a criterion. Staff may also want to consider seeking reports from ‘others’, for example peers, placement tutors and clients. Distinguish between reflection on skills, attributes or behaviours, practical legal knowledge, and reflection on ‘law in context’ and theories about legal process (see McGill and Brockbank, 1998).
• dealing with disclosure – separate out personal reflections and evidence of reflective practice. Make a distinction between what is public and private disclosure of information. Draw boundaries and be ready to facilitate difficult dialogue.
• providing feedback – feedback from tutors, peers and personal reflections developed through self-assessment are all important. Chat rooms and email provide fast feedback on learning.
• time – how long do you have to develop a reflective disposition? When is the right time to introduce it?

At the University of Gloucestershire Sue Williams, Sheila Ryan and Mike Maughan are conducting empirical research into the levels of support needed for staff involved in facilitating PDP. Participants were asked to consider three questions:

1. Can we (adequately) write learning outcomes for reflection?
2. What evidence of reflection are we asking for?
3. What and how do we assess the quality of reflection?

Lively debate ensued as participants discussed the purpose of summative assessment and final classifications. Examples and case studies were offered from Fiona Tolmie (Kingston University), Carrie Moss (Harper Adams University College), Rob East (University of Glamorgan) and Jane Ching (Nottingham Law School). The presentations discussed the practical implications of developing learning processes and assessing PDP for undergraduates, postgraduates, and students studying a limited amount of law.

To complete the day Chris Maguire (the Bar Council) and Mandy Gill (the Law Society) gave their perspectives on how PDP and autonomy are used in professional training and during the period of a training contract.