Problem-based learning in legal education

Fully Booked

24 October 2003

Drawing on the experiences of the UKCLE PBL working group, this workshop investigated the value of problem-based learning (PBL) in the context of legal education.

In opening proceedings, Andrew Scott (University of East Anglia) reflected upon the changing environment of legal education and the potential contribution that problem-based methods might offer in future. He highlighted the long standing bifurcation in legal education between academic and professional stages, and challenged the common assumption that the development of practical skills and ethical awareness is fodder only for the latter stage. He also noted the incipient pressure towards a re-evaluation of legal education (Bastin, “Why I think legal training has to change” and Sanders, “£40k bill before you get near Bar”, THES, 3 October 2003; coupled with the Law Society’s review of the training framework). In offering a theme for ensuing discussions, he concluded with the rhetorical question: How far, and how, can PBL methods be integrated in or across the curriculum so as to encourage and facilitate our students in the development of both a broad base of relevant skills and a sound disciplinary knowledge?

The main parts of the morning session consisted of first a ‘live’ demonstration of a PBL class involving six second year undergraduate students and a facilitator, and secondly students’ own reflections on the PBL methods with which they had become familiar during the previous semester. The demonstration involved the students in tackling an unseen problem for the first time; they identified a number of queries for further study and outlined how they would work together in seeking solutions to these queries.

The degree of interaction between the students – notwithstanding the ‘goldfish bowl’ situation in which they found themselves – was marked. Equally notable was their subsequent readiness to highlight in discussion with the workshop participants both the perceived advantages they recognised and the concerns they held having experienced PBL methods. Of the six students, four were very much in favour of the approach, one was non-committal, while the sixth student expressed valuable reservations. This largely favourable breakdown was emulated in feedback received on units at the University of East Anglia that have integrated PBL methods.

The afternoon session comprised three sections. In the first section Susan Bailey (Southampton Institute) and Arvind Thattai (University of East Anglia) described and reflected upon their respective experiences of using PBL methods in law teaching. The subjects covered ranged from company law through arbitration to cyberspace and the law. Susan’s case study was particularly engaging as she described how her student groups were required to establish companies, see them through various legal conundrums, and ultimately dissolve their charges in the most appropriate fashion. Her personal enthusiasm and honesty regarding her teaching practice was infectious, and her depictions of her students’ commitment to and ownership of their studies was illuminating. Arvind Thattai followed with an interesting discussion of his use of sui generis PBL methods in his two Masters level units.

The second afternoon session comprised an open discussion in which Professor Charles Engel (Institute of Higher Education) responded with both hard information and insightful anecdote to a wide range of questions posed in advance by workshop participants. Matters covered included the design of problems, the development of appropriate assessment techniques, the (erroneous) perception of difficulty in tackling more ‘theoretical’ issues using PBL methods, potential cultural issues and the potential tension incited between PBL methods and traditional approaches. Each was considered against an extensive and easy knowledge of the theoretical base.

The theme of curriculum-wide adoption of PBL provided good ground for the final section of the afternoon session, during which Professor Sam Leinster (Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of East Anglia) described and explained the cross-curriculum absorption of the PBL approach into medical education. This discussion was leavened with persuasive reference to educational theory. Disparities in the environmental circumstances and conceivable possibilities between medical and legal education were noted, but the value of this cross-disciplinary exemplar was evident. In this polished presentation, medical education was shown to involve the facilitation of students’ learning across many thematic areas; clinical and life science knowledge, socio-economic appreciation (law, ethics, sociology, psychology, economics etc), skills development and contextual awareness. The transposition of such an approach to the context of legal education was readily seen as a desirable end. The degree of sophistication and integration of learning opportunities was manifestly beyond that practised in law teaching. The challenge for the progressive law school is to see such developments come to fruition in a manner beneficial to students, teachers, employers and the wider public alike.