The personalisation of the curriculum: the Programme Overview Browser on the City Law School Bar Professional Training Course

contributors | abstract | presentation | biographies

Contributors

James Toner and Marcus Soanes (City University)

Format

Paper presentation and discussion

Abstract

Introduction
With its case-based learning (CBL) approach, the City Law School Bar Professional Training Course (CLS BPTC) may be described as purposefully ill-structured.Jonassen, DH (1997) Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Learning Outcomes. ETR&D, 45(1), 65-94 The narrative structures of these exercises and their repeated use e.g. for case analysis, written and interpersonal engagements, together with the deliberate vagueness of instructions on tasks help to immerse students into the complexity of professionals’ work.See Schön, DA (1993) The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York

However, this simulacrum of legal practice has a negative pull; it may appear chaotic to the novice and, in turn, may lead to superficiality with anything perceived as marginal to learning.Educationally there are advantages to the confusion that flows from complexity, especially at the postgraduate vocational stage of learning, and computer-based learning can both present and resolve that complexity in an appropriate manner. See Reiser, BJ (2002) Why Scaffolding Should Sometimes Make Tasks More Difficult for Learners, Proceedings of CSCL 2002, 255-264 The twin goals of the Programme Overview Browser (POB) are to offer navigation routes through the BPTC and to enhance student engagement.

Structures
The integrated design of the CLS BPTC, which blends knowledge with skills, offers a much needed real life feel to the programme but it can lead to disorientation and a visually cluttered presence on the virtual learning environment (VLE). The content manipulation approach of POB offers a solution to this dichotomy.It may potentially improve accessibility for learners with visual impairment, see Lee A (2004), Scaffolding visually cluttered web pages to facilitate accessibility, Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, May 25-28, 2004, Gallipoli, Italy POB clarifies the interrelationships amongst the curriculum, institutional resources, online and face-to-face engagements, and it offers routes through this complexity by deconstructing it without compromising detail or simulated legal environments.

1. Navigation routes are achieved by multiple search options of the programmes structures (week, subject, stream and assessment) and content (timeline or session views). This allows users to tailor their interface not only with the VLE, but also the taught programme. Thus POB is a presentational tool that adapts itself to user need and preference, rather than the constraints of the online environment or programme.
2. The architecture of POB, which complements the integrated, incremental and CBL design principles, leads learners towards online educational tasks such as quizzes, demonstration videos, and text-based exercises. This blending of the face-to-face and online engagements enables learners to “criss-cross” domain landscapes studying case materials and modules from different perspectives, in rearranged contexts and for different purposes.Spiro, RJ, Jehng, J (1990) Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In Nix D, Spiro, R (eds), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia, Ehrlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, 1990. See also Papadopoulos, PM, Demetriadis, SN, Stamelos, IG (2007) Case-Based Instruction on the Web for Teaching Software Project Management, Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, Dundee, Scotland June 25 – 27, 2007, 136-140

Computer-mediated Instructional Scaffolding
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development,Vygotsky, LS (1987). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, Collected Works (vol. 1, 39-285) (Rieber, R Carton, A (eds) Minick, N Trans.). New York: Plenum. (Original works published in 1934, 1960) the gap between what a learner can do without help and with help, was explored by BrunerWood, D, Bruner, J, Ross, G (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100 and developed into a concept of scaffolding to support learning. Interactions between the teacher and learner offer support, which is removed from learners as they gain confidence, knowledge and associated skills.

Technical scaffolding is a newer approach in which computers replace or complement teachers, and today students can be guided with web links, online tutorials, or help pages.Yelland, N, Masters, J (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers and Education, 48, 362-382 POB is designed within that tradition, though, it may be argued that as its support is inbuilt and not removed as learners progress it is not truly educational scaffolding.Jackson, SL, Krajacik, J, Soloway, E (1996) “The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments”, International Conference on Learning Sciences Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on Learning sciences Evanston, Illinois, 575 – 576 However, we expect learners to use its adaptable search and arrange facilities in different ways at different points, i.e. to plan, to seek direction and ultimately for revision. Thus POB may be described as an example of educational armature: support that is constant and inbuilt or as meta-support scaffolding that surrounds the educational programme and not merely individual learners.The term “supportive scaffolding” is defined by Jackson et al (op cit: 189) leaving the task unchanged and as sitting alongside it to offer advice and support. However, POB may be described as “other support” (ibid: 190) because it does not “fade” within the programme and makes tasks more accessible. In any event, we argue that the learner-centred design principle that was privileged throughout POB’s conception and realisation at the very least complements the instructional scaffolding design principles of the CLS BPTC. Therefore we will present a midpoint interpretative evaluation of POB that interrogates its accessibility, efficiency, and asks how accurately it meets its avowed aims.Preece, J et al (1994) Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley

Semantic Web and Cognition
POB is a sub-project linked to ENSEMBLE.Both projects use tools developed in the SIMILE Project, which is based at MIT Libraries and the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory http://simile.mit.edu and supported by the World Wide Web Consortium and Hewlett-Packard Labs. ENSEMBLE’s goal is to explore the potential of the Semantic Web World Wide Web Consortium (2008), ‘W3C Semantic Web Activity’ http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ (Accessed October 2010) to support teaching in complex and rapidly evolving fields where CBL is the pedagogical approach of choice, as is the case in CLS BPTC.

Semantics is based on communication and refers to the meaning of information rather than its syntax. The semantic web offers learners a wealth of related content and meaning through associated relationships “in disparate systems [that] will be continuously evolving”. Daly, C (2009) The Semantic Web and E-learning, Macmillan Publishers, Ltd. April 9, 2009 http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?searchterm=Semantic&article=77-1§ion=articles (Accessed October 2010) Using the SIMILE toolkit, POB provides interchange and conversion processes to support the aggregation of disparate data.

POB also draws on theories of “chunking”, to reduce cognitive overload; “by grouping information into a meaningful, memorable pattern, we reduce the number of individual (and potentially arbitrary) things individuals have to memorize, and increase the chances of understanding the concepts.” Creating Passionate Users (2007) Crash Course in Learning Theory, Weblog (Online) Available from: http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/01/crash_course_in.html (Accessed October 2010)

Presentation

Short biographies of panel members

James Toner is an Educational Technologist who has specialised in the area interactive design and usability evaluation. He has worked in the Legal Education sector since 2006 project managing the online delivery at the College of Law and more recently the implementation of a new Virtual Learning Environment at the City Law School, City University London..

Marcus Soanes is a barrister and principal lecturer who has designed vocational programmes for the Bar Course and the Criminal Litigation LLM. His teaching includes both written and interpersonal legal skills and dissertation supervision. He also trains police, private clients and experts in witness familiarisation and contributes to the Solicitors’ Higher Rights of Audience programme and assessment. He is the editor of the Conference Skills Manual, OUP and has contributed to the Law Teacher, Clinical Law Review and the New Law Journal. Marcus has special interests in online learning, which grew out of a Masters Degree in Online and Distance Education, 2004 Open University. He has presented at the Clinical Legal Education Conference, California, BVC Conferences, SoTL London and Learning In Law Annual Conference.

Last Modified: 24 February 2011