Implementing benchmarking for law

The benchmark statement for law was published by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in 2000. At the 2000 LILI conference one workshop session was dedicated to the process of implementing the benchmark standards into law courses, with reports from five law schools.

Reports on implementing benchmarking from:

• University of Bristol
• Coventry University
• De Montfort University
• University of Leeds
• Middlesex University

De Montfort University – Martin Davis

In its latest phase of modularity (due to be implemented in academic year 2000-01) De Montfort places great stress on programmes (or diets as it now terms them) having coherent, articulated overall learning outcomes, which are measurable. Programme outcomes should be cross-relatable to outcomes in the modules which make up the programme. All assessment requirements in the modules should cross-relate to module learning outcomes.

As a result of the imminence of the above we resolved in September 1999 to conduct a review of the LLB programme and its component modules to assess:

• the extent to which the learning outcomes of the modules and programme were clear
• the extent to which the existing learning outcomes and assessment regimes satisfied benchmarking criteria
• the modifications which were as a consequence required

The review is currently approximately half complete. Preliminary conclusions are that:

• learning outcomes do need clearer articulation
• the programme does satisfy most of what benchmarking demands. Key areas of deficiency relate to team working/group work and numeracy
• we should concentrate on getting the core right (de facto years 1 and 2). Year 3 is entirely optional (approximately 20 options in total) and monitoring students to ensure that benchmarking omissions are rectified in year 3 would be a complex operation, which could also constrain student choice.

We hope to complete the review by late January 2000. We think we will have little practical difficulty in satisfying the national standards as currently articulated, and there are potential advantages (for staff and students) in the process of clearer articulation of learning outcomes.

However it would help:

• if there was a closer dialogue between the QAA and those responsible for implementing standards
• to have consistency in the language used and categorisations employed in relation to skills/competence
• if there were clear statements about the amount of evidence needed to satisfy particular standards, for example, (broadly) on how many occasions team working or oral skills needed formal assessment

University of Leeds – William Hinds

The department conducted a review of the LLB programme in 1995-96, producing a final report in 1996. As a result it adopted a statement of learning outcomes, in terms of knowledge and what we categorised as competences.

During 1998-99 the department took part in the trials of the first part of the new quality assurance methodology, dealing with what the QAA categorises as standards. Institutions and reviewers were asked to address a series of questions, some but not all of them involving reference to the benchmarks, in particular how intended learning outcomes related to the benchmark standards.

This involved us in addressing directly the benchmarks and relating these to our LLB programme. We undertook a mapping exercise for our modules to relate the benchmark standards to these. In the light of this exercise we developed a programme specification.

The brief from the QAA for the trials was to avoid as far as possible the production of new documentation for these purposes. An exception was the production, if participating institutions wished, of a programme specification, for which a template was provided.

We decided to do this by taking our existing statement of learning outcomes, rather than the benchmarks themselves, as representing what we claimed to do at that time, and seeking to demonstrate how these were achieved and assessed throughout the programme.

This proved a valuable exercise in identifying the extent to which we could demonstrate that the benchmarks were incorporated in our existing programme. However, we have not so far explicitly revised modules or programmes in the light of them and we will obviously need to look further at this. The issues which have emerged from the exercise we have so far undertaken include:

• benchmarks in the context of the QAA review methodology
• the relationship of benchmarks to modal statements of standards
• incorporation into joint degrees and two year degree programmes
• assessment methods and criteria

Middlesex University – Penny Childs

Incorporating the benchmark standards at Middlesex University has taken place as part of the process of revalidating undergraduate law provision. The incorporation of the skills outcomes specified in the benchmark standards have had an impact for both curriculum design, content and organisation, and on our learning, teaching and assessment strategy.

The process at Middlesex has taken place in the context of a semesterised and modular framework, with medium to large sized programmes. Whilst the programmes are modular, there are both single honours programmes, where a substantial proportion of the curriculum is compulsory, and joint honours programmes, where there is more flexibility in programme design, determined mainly by student choice. Modules are organised into levels which, particularly in jointhonours, do not necessarily correspond to years of study.

Issues arising are:

Incorporating (and mapping) the benchmark standards onto skills outcomes into both a single and joint honours curriculum and the impact on design and organisation of that curriculum. For example, decisions have to be made about how to incorporate the skills (integration into modules, standalone modules or some combination). The issues may differ in the context of different types of programme. In the context of joint honours, incorporating the standards also engenders a debate about the flexibility of the curriculum and about the need for student responsibility in recording achievement.

Demonstrating progression in skills development throughout the curriculum. This raises a number of questions, not least about whether all skills should develop progressively through the years, levels or stages of a programme or whether some might reach the benchmark threshold standards at different stages in the programme. This in turn requires consideration of the relationship between identifying the stages of skills development and identifying outcomes in module specifications, level descriptors and for awards. Mapping skills development in modular joint honours programmes highlights many of these issues.

Relating the benchmark standards on skills outcomes to the learning and teaching strategy for programmes. This raises a number of questions about identifying the methods adopted to develop skills and demonstrating how these skills are achieved through the learning process. It also has a number of implications for institutional policies on learning resources and staff development.

Recording the achievement of the skills outcomes and providing evidence of their attainment at the threshold level. For example, a decision has to be made about how to provide a record of achievement. Consideration also has to be given to whether to assess skills (and if so by what method) and/or whether evidence of their attainment could be satisfactorily provided in some other way (such as exposure to the skill or repeat performance plus feedback). The implications of the possible approaches need to be explored.

Last Modified: 12 July 2010