A problem-based learning approach to company law

Susan Bailey, Southampton Institute

Company law is delivered as an option to level 2 and 3 students on the LLB and LLB with pathways programme at Southampton Institute. In 2000 these programmes were revalidated, and the company law team used this opportunity to overhaul the learning and teaching approach to the unit, introducing a problem-based learning (PBL) approach. The revised unit was delivered for the first time in 2002. This then is the story of the development of a PBL approach to company law. It is very much an on-going process, but we are all, students and course team alike, finding it very exciting, challenging and absorbing.

I have been working on the development of a problem-based learning (PBL) approach to the delivery of an undergraduate company law unit for the past 2-3 years. With the traditional assessment methods of examination and assignment, students were passing the unit knowing a few select areas in detail. Given that some 90% of all companies registered in England and Wales are private limited companies ranging in size from the single member entity to very large undertakings, it is realistic to assume that many students will be involved with the running of a company at some stage in their life or career. The course team therefore decided to change the assessment for the unit to reflect the learning outcomes we considered desirable, and to look at the delivery methods used. A
description of the unit as well as other information is given in the
UKCLE PBL mini-site.

Students receive a lengthy PowerPoint presentation when they join the unit, covering all aspects of what I mean by a PBL approach as well as various ideas about thinking skills. The students do not see all of it in one go. I revisit parts of the presentation through the first term as the need for further underpinning of the idea behind PBL arises.

I will not dwell here too much on the company law aspects of the unit, as to my extreme amazement several colleagues have confided in me recently that company law bores them to tears! I will endeavour instead to describe the techniques I am using and present some of the challenges we are facing in this constantly iterative process. The unit is very much about learning by doing, and hence it feels a bit awkward to write about it. However, I have not yet developed a showcase version to take to colleagues.

Where does PBL come from

The technique seems to have been developed in the 1960s in Australia, Canada and the USA in medical schools and gradually spread to other disciplines. However, I think that engineers have been using this technique for longer than the medical profession.

PBL can be used either in a single unit or as a holistic approach to a whole programme of study. I know that in Australia there is at least one medical school that has been designed and constructed to deliver all courses using a PBL approach. The prospect of academics working with architects to produce a purpose built facility must be tremendously exciting.

The beginnings of PBL as we know it were based very much in professional education, but it has spread gradually into the academic undergraduate syllabus as well.

What is PBL?

It is an approach that reflects the way people learn in real life. You get on with solving the problems life puts in front of you. As Boud puts it: “The starting point for learning with PBL is a problem, query or puzzle that the learner wishes to solve.” So the student seeks out the necessary knowledge required to solve the problem. Very briefly the skills involved are:

• problem solving skills
• thinking skills
• teamwork skills
• communication skills
• time management skills
• information skills
• computing skills

The actual problem solving strategy involves the following stages:

• an overview of the problem
• the three stages of understanding the problem – learning, solving
• thinking skills and issues
• and then reflecting

The company law unit

My unit is delivered ‘long thin’ across 26 weeks with two hours contact time per week. The timetabling structure is traditional, ie I have one session with 52 students and two seminar sessions with about 20 students in each. My colleague takes the other 12 students in one further seminar group.

In the seminars the students form themselves into boards of directors and initially form a company each. In the sessions that have 20 students, two companies are formed. We now have five companies ‘registered’ in the law school – my seminar groups are divided into two. It has taken the groups 13 weeks to form their companies, but during this process they have also learned about other matters, such as pre-incorporation contracts, and a great deal about directors, both executive and non-executive.

We are now moving onto the second 13 weeks, in which we will deal with the financial aspects of the company – capital, shares, financial assistance, insolvency and the ultimate winding-up of the company.

Those of you who are familiar with company law will have spotted that I have altered the traditional format of the syllabus, placing much more emphasis on the behaviour and responsibility of directors at the beginning of the course. One of the main overarching themes is the tension between the shareholders, directors and the company, and this will now be extended into minority protection issues.

The seminar session addresses the practicalities of dealing with company law problems – if the aim is to apply company law to solving company law problems, then solving the company law problems is the main learning and teaching activity. To be honest, on a day to day basis, there is not much need for a more in-depth understanding than that. So, through the seminars the students achieve a competent working knowledge of company law. Sadly, there is no space to do anything other than acknowledge revenue issues, which do play a large part in the setting up of a company.

The function then of the large group session is to explore the academic debate and underpinning. I refuse to call these sessions lectures because of the behaviour patterns the use of the ‘l’ word induces in students. I use a combination of the Socratic method, mixed with buzz groups and a jigsaw technique. So I split the students into working groups which concentrate on specific questions, with a view to the responses fitting together to address a larger issue and synthesise areas of knowledge. The success of the large group session depends on reading having been completed before the session.

Again, for those with a knowledge of company law, the issues of reform are presently dealt with by way of an exercise; students identify the areas being considered for reform, put a mark by them in their programme of work and remember that as the areas come up for discussion they need to see what reforms are proposed. (I also give them a nudge at the relevant time too.)

How do we assess?

The students are required from day one to run their seminars as formal meetings and to minute those meetings with action points. They are required to keep individual reflective journals (which include the minutes). These account for 50% of the marks.

Secondly, the students undergo a viva at the end of the year with questions based on their own reflective logs, which they can take into the examination. This is to check their understanding of what they have written, and carries 40% of the marks.

Finally, we allot 10% for contribution in class. This is measured initially by expecting everyone to take a turn at chairing the meeting and acting as minuting secretary, and now requiring the students to note down on the minutes when someone has made a significant contribution.

How is it for us?

Last year was the first year of delivery of this unit. When I saw the faces of the students as I described to them what was expected of them to complete this unit and after the first few sessions, I had a fit of the vapours and retreated to giving mini-lectures before expecting the students to apply their knowledge. We worked towards achieving a PBL approach by the end of the year, which we finally did. I realised very early that I needed to give the students much greater input on how to work with the PBL approach, and reinforced this regularly via the presentation through the year.

It is a very scary thing for the students to have their security taken away from them, as they are used to a structured delivery. This year we integrated development in the PBL techniques with initial input on company law. There is a possible difficulty in dwelling on the skills required in isolation when the students have signed up for a unit in company law, so we have tried to give them a blend.

One of the exercises that I use for further underpinning on thinking skills later in the year is a ‘Six thinking hats’ exercise. I ran this in one of the large group sessions a few weeks ago, by posing a question and then dividing up the groups into the different colours and asking them to answer the question strictly in line with the criteria for that colour. They thought I had gone completely mad and ventured to suggest that the answer would be the same from every group. I introduced the exercise as a way to get round thinking blocks. As I recorded the feedback from each group it became very apparent just how different the answers could be. The students seemed to be impressed, but I have not seen any of them using the techniques recently when they get stuck in their thought processes.

Last year the group was very small. This year there are 52 students which poses a logistical difficulty, first in the large group session and also in the fact that I have two boards of directors per seminar group to interact with.

I use Learnwise, our managed learning environment, to put up information for the large group sessions and to direct the students’ reading. After a few weeks the students asked me to put up the questions for the large group sessions to enable them to prepare more fully. This seems to have resulted in the weaker students not coming along to the large group sessions, as they are of the opinion that reading and answering the questions themselves will be sufficient. On the other hand, the quality of the work coming from the committed students is very much improved. A Christmas message suggesting to the students that they should all be attending the large group session has paid off in greater attendance since January and apologies from several absentees. This is clearly an issue I need to revisit for next year and to concentrate on how to make the large group session more interactive.

The attendance in the seminars is excellent. Students let each other and me know if they cannot get there, which is a rare occurrence. All my groups have an extra meeting a week outside the timetabled sessions, to ensure that they have researched the areas they need to look at and have prepared all they need to for the scheduled meetings. These groups are voluntary self study groups – there is no requirement for the students to do this. Maybe the answer to the large group challenge is to get the students to continue to work in their company teams, but looking at different aspects.

Writing reflective journals is difficult as well. This year I have been non-prescriptive in the format of the journals. We have encouraged the students to take advantage of formative feedback from the tutors, always on offer for their journals. Those who have used the resource are producing good work, however there are several students who keep forgetting their journals. We have an interim hand-in date for formative feedback next week, with no sanction for non-hand-in, so we will see how many we get.

Why do we do it?

I am very committed to this approach as a way of learning. My colleague is also committed, but takes a slightly more structured approach than I do, to guide her seminar group.

• It provides a structured approach for use in working contexts and is concerned with constructing knowledge that is to be put to work.

• It develops effective reasoning processes. Such processes refer to the cognitive activities required in the practice of company law, including problem solving, decision making, hypothesising etc.

• It develops self-directed learning skills, generic study skills, content specific skills, meta-cognitive skills, self-management skills focusing on what the learner does in new contexts – in other words, lifelong learning.

• It increases motivation for learning. Students are placed in a context that requires their immediate and committed involvement.
• It develops group skills working with colleagues. Teamwork takes place in a workplace like context, unlike most forms of group project work.

The beauty of this approach for company law is that as it is not a core unit, the different companies can move to a certain extent at their own pace. If a particular part of company law really fascinates one group, there is the flexibility for them to spend more time on what they enjoy. We cover the whole syllabus, but the depths might vary between groups. This flexibility encourages motivation and deep learning. In addition, there is the flexibility to watch and use the group dynamic. All groups have life cycles, ups and downs, and when I spot a low coming along I can set a less complex problem to answer, thus giving a boost to the group morale and a quick win.

What does a PBL approach need?

It needs a lot of organising and very good facilitation skills. It needs courage to back off from being content driven – it’s much safer to stand behind a lectern and give a lecture or to have a series of structured seminar questions to answer, I know, I’ve been there.

Implementation needs to be realistic within the constraints of the available resource.

A PBL approach is student centred. Feedback from students is generally positive. There is a danger that the more enthusiastic student can overload themselves in the writing of the reflective journal, however I view that as another learning opportunity for those students.

A quick survey of last year’s students who have graduated (done at graduation, so it may be a bit biased) revealed that they had found the approach as well as their grasp of the content extremely useful as they progressed to the Legal Practice Course and employment.

I personally get tremendous pleasure out of it, as the interaction with students is much greater than previously and I find it exciting.

In the words of John Biggs: “PBL is alignment itself.” What more is there to say?

References

• Biggs J (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd edition) Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press
• Boud D (1985) Problem-based learning in education for the professions Sydney: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia
• De Bono E (1985) Six thinking hats Harmondsworth: Penguin

Last Modified: 12 July 2010