Related Pages

There are no pages related to this one.

Home

The UK Centre for Legal Education (UKCLE) works with law teachers, students and institutions, to improve the student learning experience.

Comments

There are no comments at this time

Tagged

This article has not been tagged

Home » Conference » LILI 2006 » Moving outside the box?

Moving outside the box?

A conceptual and practical review of teaching reflective and critical thinking with undergraduates

Grier Palmer, University of Warwick

This paper reports a small action research study that has taken place over three years at Warwick involving over 100 third year law and business students on an innovative ‘critical issues’ module.

The students’ experiences of their learning challenges, responses and development are reported. The pedagogic grounding of the curriculum design is re-examined along with practical delivery elements.

A preliminary pedagogic evaluation of the module provides an opportunity to reflect critically on teaching strategy and practice, and the difficulties facing any radical educational initiative.

Editor’s note: Grier provided an update on the module at Learning in Law Annual Conference 2009 in his paper Helping law students via spaces and performance.

The academic and professional contexts

Both leading academic and professional authorities (Dearing 1997; Entwistle 1998; Law Society 2005; Quality Assurance Agency 2000) have supported the goal of graduates as independent learners with higher level thinking abilities, such as critical thinking and reflection.

But both research (Baron 1996; Hinett 2002; Philips & Bond 2004) and practitioner experiences suggest that many undergraduate students can be teacher dependent, are likely to prioritise retention via surface learning and feel uncomfortable with reflection. Barnett (1997) has suggested that structural and cultural elements in higher education may support or even encourage utilitarian approaches by students, and UKCLE has illustrated the educational emphasis by the law profession on the acquisition of both specific technical knowledge and vocational skills, such as writing and drafting (Boon & Whyte 2002; Fancourt 2004; Harcup 2004).

Given this context of strong influences and educational tensions, what pedagogic strategies should law teachers adopt to achieve ‘illuminated’ students using critical and reflective approaches? And what teaching designs and classroom practices can successfully create different and innovative kinds of learning experiences to counterbalance the apparently instrumental approaches of many students?

The module

Third year law and business degree students study ‘Critical issues in law and management’ (CILM), a compulsory 24 CATS module introduced three years ago. This paper focuses on the students’ experiences and critically reflects on the pedagogic issues, both strategically and operationally. The author’s role in the design, development and delivery of the module supports a small case study approach, using both educational action research and participant observation (Blaxter et al 2001).

Previously Warwick Business School had launched an interdisciplinary pedagogic initiative, ‘Critical issues in management’, as a core course. This was set up for mainstream business degree students in their final year, and aimed for a student centred, participative character, emphasising self development and practical skills – presenting, group working, etc. (Mingers 2000). ‘Critical’ referred both to crucial issues and also sceptical thinking, ie both content and process.

CILM followed in parallel, with the 2005-06 cohort the third year of the module. Initially the course was taught by the author (a strategy teacher) and a solicitor/law teacher; the latter has recently been replaced by an accountancy lecturer, with an organisational strategy lecturer adding support.

The key objectives of the module are to encourage (author’s emphasis):

  • awareness of the wider picture (including competing interests, fundamental ethical dilemmas) and the connections to the detail
  • thinking approaches such as analysing unstructured or complex problems, or using critical thinking in individual and team based settings

The module consists of a series of fortnightly two hour workshops spread over two terms with phased assessment, principally in the second term. The study activities and their assessment weights are:

  • case study presentations in syndicate teams (20%)
  • ‘book’ review group discussions plus an individually written review (20%)
  • individual written reflections at the end of each term (20%)
  • a ‘long’ essay at the end of the module (40%)

The case studies and book extracts are chosen by the academics. Issues studied include ethics and personal responsibility, differences between law and business, and relationships between academic and vocational teaching. The students choose the themes for both their reflective pieces and their long essay. There are no exams.

There is a four hour ‘kick start’ briefing session, which includes formal group exercises to help build awareness of team and learning preferences, plus a critical thinking mini case to illustrate going below the surface of texts. In addition to the case and book materials there is a reading pack with a reading list.

The style of the assignments is facilitative and undefined, as in these examples:

  • We wish to allow you maximum independence for your syndicate’s thinking and discussion about how to structure your review and frame the case’s issues.
  • You may reflect on any of your experiences from the module during the first term. You do not have to follow the template below but can do so if it helps.
  • You are required to reflect on the case presentation session that you have observed as a member of the audience. If you wish, you may use the questions posed below to help you formalise your thoughts but you do not have to and are free to reflect in whatever manner/style you choose.

Student experiences and perspectives

The students’ experiences (2004-05 and 2005-06 cohorts) are revealed qualitatively in their written assessments, especially the reflective pieces, and in module feedback (2004-05 cohort, a total of 39 students) combining quantitative evaluation and commentary. Class experiences are complemented by the teachers’ participant observations.

The module overall was seen as different, generally positively. A few students commented it was late in the degree and one suggested “presentations and critical thinking earlier…critical issues/ethics as a standalone module”.

Overall, how valuable would you rate this module in terms of what you have learned and your development?
 

  • average: 4
  • fairly high: 12
  • high: 15
     
  • did not like module at all – but did develop a bit
  • I guess this module will be helpful with my graduate career but does not seems very useful for law modules
  • learned different skills from this than other modules
  • just different to any other modules – different ways of approaching
  • breaks the monotony of normal lectures
  • its really useful for me and helps me very much when I go to interviews and assessment centres
  • presentation was very useful
  • I have learnt not only content but other things from this module, such as different ways of thinking, learning and working in groups
  • have noticed improvement in the skills it sought to teach – enjoyed sessions and appreciated different style of learning
  • really useful – taught generic skills
  • prefer it to become earlier

One key perspective of the students was the contrast between CILM and other modules, ie their previous study experiences. The differences troubled many of the class:

The main differences from conventional courses were the lack of lectures…and entirely assessed with coursework. Initially I found this very hard to adapt to, as it left me feeling unsure of what the module demanded and therefore how best to approach it.

Incredibly frustrating…treading water…help students to accept ambiguity earlier.

But for others this difference was positive:

Normally we are put in a room and lectured at…other people’s opinions. Never normally do we get to consider our own…It also fun…as it is so different.

Law school purely theory based…devoid for everyday applicability…‘authors’ are created as opposed to ‘narrators’.

So set in my view of what learning was…not just facts…but skills as well.

Frequently students noted their increased or new critical reluctance to take text at its face value or to assume only one perspective was right:

This is perhaps one of the things I have begun to learn – there is often no right or wrong answer.

A Level was designed to enable greater analysis of problems but without questioning data. University education had the role of encouraging students to analyse arguments, question the data and draw own conclusions, a role of critical thinking…I have just been accepting ideas and believing that information was 100% acceptable.

Varieties of viewpoints – non linear.

Now think about why given…and why written. (re materials)

However some noted discomfort in taking up a more critical approach:

Encourage free thought…only benefits those willing to experiment.

My underlying fear of being incorrect.

Concept of self criticism was more difficult.

The students found the pedagogic design and processes appropriate, but several would have liked some more lecturing or structured explanation in the early stages.

How appropriate was the style of delivery (balance of lectures/seminars, group work, class participation, etc)?
 

  • fairly low: 3
  • average: 1
  • fairly high: 19
  • high: 9
     
  • I believe that a couple of formal lectures would have been useful
  • lacked structure
  • I know its a module that we have to contribute a lot to in order to get something from but I felt were needed more guidance at the start to grasp the concept
  • the workload varied very heavily from week to week
  • would have appreciated a little extra structured learning to help understand the concept
  • appropriate and informal for module content
  • use of lectures in relaxed environment helped to demonstrate what the module was about

No firm basis or substantitive information from which to develop [critical thinking].

After presentations more critical feedback.

The lack of exams was a challenge for some, for others a liberation:

With no formal examination.. what to learn and understand?

Learning is a skill…exams test ‘knowledge’…or short term memory.

The 2004-05 cohort was positive about the development influence of the ‘author as teacher against the module’s key objective.

Lecturer’s ability to encourage critical thinking
 

  • poor: 1
  • average: 3
  • good: 12
  • very good: 13
     
    One student’s comment challenged the author:
      Uses catchphrases too often. I am content thinking inside the box!

The distinct activities and assessments were broadly appreciated, although some changes in our setting up process seemed to be needed.

The two reflective pieces were relatively well handled, with middle 60% marks across the three years covered. This type of learning process is new to the students, and initially in the first two years there was a heavy descriptive bias. This was reduced in the third cohort’s first submissions, with both some increase in criticality and significantly a wide range of elements reflected on (of 25 pieces 20 reflected on case presentations and 16 on group dynamics, followed by 10 commenting on the module and 10 on critical thinking.)

To what extent did the reflective pieces contribute to the module’s aims and objectives?
 

  • average: 7
  • fairly high: 14
  • high: 10
     
  • they were pretty hard to define, not entirely sure if I knew what the point of them was
  • a little more guidance would have been helpful
  • didn’t find this particularly useful as I felt it was waffle – maybe just different to what used to
  • it felt quite waffly – I think we said a lot of things that sound good as essentially we want to get good mark
  • gave an opportunity to formally reflect and receive feedback on this
  • help to focus on the objectives of the course
  • forced you to take on board what you learnt
  • useful to think about ourselves and our own performance.
  • reflective piece was very interesting and a joy to write
  • new way of thinking/learning
  • very useful in learning skills

The case presentations were very appreciated. The feedback quote however reflects the general view that the principal benefit was seen as better present_ing _ rather than more critical presentat_ions._ Therefore learning about audience impact and engagement apparently was valued more than the stimulus or challenge of different interpretations and arguments.

In the reflective pieces the case preparation experience often overlapped with the case presentation itself as a learning opportunity about group process and individual strengths, preferences, etc, but some students did articulate their evaluation of the influence on thinking.

To what extent did the case study presentations contribute to the module’s aims and objectives?
 

  • fairly low: 1
  • average: 5
  • fairly high: 10
  • high: 16
     
  • advanced analytical approaches forced us to find ways to make our presentation stand out
  • content…not…really challenging – possible options…fairly obvious…little talk of any plan of action
  • “very helpful…critical thinking…scrutinise the ways in which it is written as well as…viewpoint of a manager or consultant
  • establishment of a process of thought development

The book reviews received moderate evaluation. Some of the 2005-06 cohort questioned in their first reflections the relevance (sic) of the first session’s readings about academic and professional education in the two disciplines, however the critical approach the reviews encourage, ie digging below the surface and of sceptical reading, received positive comments.

To what extent did the book reviews contribute to the module’s aims and objectives?
 

  • fairly low: 1
  • average: 8
  • fairly high: 14
  • high: 7
     
  • needed to be clearer on book reviews
  • did not really understand the relevance at times (between book reviews and the course)
  • they encouraged critically thinking a lot
  • helped drive on our progress in critiquing and self reflection
  • made me read the materials
  • encouraged critical thinking of where the text came from, author etc
  • very effective
  • opportunity to bounce ideas off other people made good contribution to critical thinking

A preliminary balance sheet: does our pedagogic strategy ‘illuminate’ student learning?

The module attempts to challenge students by introducing innovation in both the teaching and study processes. Our pedagogic strategy has three key elements:

  1. To use group process to promote awareness of other and wider perspectives, through collaborative learning with case studies and book reviews.
  2. To promote critical development by self reflection.
  3. To eliminate teacher-led content and lecture inputs – content is student-provided (in the sense that the teacher designated module material is introduced, formatted and reviewed by the students – but this may be an area for increased autonomy) principally as a stimulus and focus for practising critical and other skills.

We can evaluate the results as positive, across and in the three years to date:

  • all students have completed
  • average module marks are 65-66% with a range of 55% to 75%;
  • student feedback on their learning and development is very positive (high: 15, fairly high: 12, average: 4; 2004-05)
  • assignment work and observed activities demonstrate application and improvement in module skills
  • below average volume of student requests to tutors for help with assignments
  • no complaints or major concerns via staff/student liaison channels

A preliminary review below uses principally the assessed assignments as source material for evaluation. It proposes that there are some positive movements across all stakeholder groups in the identified elements, but also highlights some concerns and questions (in parentheses).

The CILM module: preliminary balance sheet
 
Students as students:
 
+ self direction, personal awareness, communication, group skills
 
(More presenting and teamwork than criticality? Year 3 thinking quality?)
 
Teachers:
 
+ tutorial and formative: challenge and coach, introduce bigger picture
 
(Isolated? More marking + feedback, achieving enough criticality output?)
 
The schools/university:
 
+ criticality, reflexivity; employability, subject awareness
 
(Location in degree? Specific module vs generic skills? Student paradigms.)
 
Students as adults:
 
+ CPD learning from experience, personal learning responsibility, sceptical
(Deviate from professional career skills, knowledge? Only a surface process?)
 
Employers’ intake:
 
+ more autonomous, aware of wider context, group and communication skills
 
(Critical and reflective vs practical and active? Curiosity/OTB vs LPC?)

The students’ evaluations are broadly positive about their learning experience. It seems that despite the limited ‘prescriptive’ or directive teaching (creating what some see as ‘vagueness’ or lack of support), the students value and enjoy the pedagogic differences in the module’s approach. Skills developments in presentations and group work seem the predominant highlights, but there is a substantial change in critical and reflective thinking.

Discussion

Pedagogic concepts such as Kolb’s experiential learning (1984) or propositions for student engagement – for deep learning, understanding, independence (Marton et al 1997; Shulman 1987; Boud 1998), have helped ground the CILM teaching strategy and perhaps help explain its apparent success. Switching outside education to innovation studies in business, Roger’s diffusion model could be useful in checking whether the module’s learning innovations are likely to be taken up by students. Similarly Lewin’s force field analytical tool could be applied to identify both resistance to and enabling forces for the pedagogic changes attempted in CILM.

Clearly CILM’s style and approach is a shock to undergraduates – are the teachers doing enough to either prepare them or support them, perhaps in what Carl Roger’s called ‘empathetic’ teaching. Perhaps there should be more allowance for student emotions (Baron 1996, citing Klein & Roger), when deeper or critical styles of study are promoted?

Is any re-design necessary? What can be used in student feedback to help them take on the different types of learning demanded of them? Five ideas for discussion.

  1. Make inputs more visual, creative – use the Web or live cases, and be bolder with materials and themes?
  2. Increase provision and signposting of resources for critical thinking, with specific texts and Web links?
  3. Give rewards for research and student peer feedback; perhaps be more innovative with assessment?
  4. Increase teaching with more critical tutorials, for example. in the early book review and case sessions?
  5. Review the module’s balance – consider fewer cases and presentations, more reviews and discussion?

Are there risks in ‘moving outside the box’? Are the students being asked to leave one box and enter another? Perhaps into the box of the teachers? Might the collaborative learning in syndicates set up ‘group think’?

One student critically commented on the ‘box’ the teachers constructed that students were asked to “work outside the confines…but remaining within the guidelines of the course”.

Therefore, instead of risk avoidance, should the module’s innovativeness be increased, in the radical spirit of action research? For example, could the cognitive teaching be supplemented with behaviour coaching? Should students choose the material, themes, and issues? Should the academic balance be tilted by bringing in practitioners to the workshops? Ie bring law professionals and managers together in CILM’s box? Should CILM become more vocational in content, with more ‘in practice’ evaluation and discussion? And why not reverse the original CIM paradigm and teach critical thinking, either formally or perhaps through some Web-based content?

Possible next steps

Are there other teaching initiatives in the university relevant for CILM?

At Warwick Business School there are other learning innovations in the author’s teaching portfolio, which could pedagogically both help and challenge CILM, including:

  • ‘Outside the box’: activities in the E.On UK Leadership programme – executives individually and in groups review unrelated book and film materials such as The life of Pi or West Side Story
  • relatively unstructured strategy cases, with presentations using the post modern text Images of strategy (Cummings & Wilson 2003) in an elective for third year business undergraduates
  • live case interviews (of owners) followed by real time consultancy presentations by Diploma student managers

In addition, the university has launched the Learning Grid, a space students use as a facility for ‘collaborative learning’. Unlike a library the Grid encourages discussion and provides technology for preparing and practicing presentations, plus equipment for viewing the Internet and videos. Is there a relevance to CILM which has not been exploited yet?

The following next steps under the themes of innovation and research are proposed:

Continue educational innovation:

  • try for holism, spreading the CILM approach to other modules in the law and business degree, for example the author’s assessed contribution to a second international module
  • search out academic allies (and students?) to help increase the momentum behind the CILM innovations, for example reflection specifically assessed
  • review the design and delivery, including the suggestions above – and place these possibly in an action research format
  • promote the module more to students – its differences, challenges and benefits

Increase educational action research:

  • interview students at key moments across the module;
  • try to follow-up with alumni studying or working in the legal professions for retrospective perspectives (include business students studying the parallel CIM module?)
  • conduct quantitative surveys in vivo, ie during workshops and group work
  • set up peer observation, to give triangulation and teacher feedback
  • review the historical documents, for example code the reflective pieces over the three years, revisit the presentations analysing content and process rather than delivery and impact

References

Biography of Grier Palmer

Grier is a principal teaching fellow in the marketing and strategic management group at Warwick Business School.

Last Modified: 12 July 2010

©UKCLE 2000-2010 UK Centre for Legal Education