A few of my favourite things: three rules of thumb for module design informed by self-determination theory

contributors | abstract | presentation | biographies

Contributors

Graham Ferris, Rebecca Huxley-Binns and Andrea Nicholson (Nottingham Trent University)

Format

Paper presentation

Abstract

When designing a module specifically designed to encourage student engagement through an approach that encourages student reflection upon personal values it makes sense to give attention to factors that psychological research has indicated can improve student motivation and well-being. If successful such a congruence of content and administration should enhance the range and confidence of student response and thereby enhance flexibility in student learning.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has developed from experiments that demonstrated learning behaviour contrary to the predication of an operant conditioning model. It was demonstrated that sometimes reward (reinforcement) had negative effects upon learning performance (behaviour modification). Explanations for this led to a humanistic approach to learning theory that would eventually recognise three human needs the satisfaction of which motivated human behaviour (including learning). When designing a final year optional module in Critical Legal Thinking we decided to try and incorporate sensitivity to these human needs into our design within the limits set by administrative possibility, demands of the subject matter, and our other pedagogical concerns (in terms of abilities we wished to develop, the need for coherence in presentation, our need to discriminate in turns of performance between the students etc).

The three needs identified by SDT are:

1. Autonomy – enhanced by allowing choice. Thus, we were alert to the possibility of freedom of choice – especially in areas that the institution considers valuable such as assessment practice and the determination of appropriate subject matter for study.
2. Competence – enhanced when the learner feels able to contribute to the learning process. It means giving validation to aspects of students’ experience.
3. Relatedness – enhanced by feeling part of a group. It means striving to create identity groups within the student body, and across the student and faculty divide.

As a few examples of our attempt to bear in mind the insights of SDT in module design within the Critical Legal Thinking module we have:

• Created the opportunity for students to negotiate the title of the major piece of assessment they undertake
• called into play the intuitive moral responses of the students to ethical dilemmas (following Sandel – a source of inspiration for our design of the CLT course was the availability online of the lectures of Michael J Sandel at: www.justiceharvard.org)
• deliberately avoided at crucial points any canonical answer to problems posed by pluralism.

Presentation

Short biographies of panel members

Graham Ferris is Reader in Law at Nottingham Law School (NLS), Nottingham Trent University. He has been teaching law in Higher Education for nearly twenty years. He has published in the fields of property law and legal education.

Rebecca Huxley-Binns is a Reader in Legal Education at Nottingham Law School. She has been teaching in FE and HE for nearly 20 years and has published in the fields of English Legal System and Method, Criminal Law and Legal Education. Becky is Law Teacher of the Year 2010.

Andrea Nicholson is a Senior Lecturer at Nottingham Law School, teaching public international law, international human rights, and critical legal thinking. Her research is in the field of international human rights and contemporary forms of slavery. Andrea is Assistant Editor of the Nottingham Law Journal.

Last Modified: 1 March 2011