An exploratory study into the use of interactive technology to teach law

In her paper Catherine Russell (Manchester Metropolitan University) presented findings from ongoing research into the potential of electronic voting systems (clickers) in enhancing lecture interactivity, engagement and ultimately progression in a large year one LLB cohort.

The session was blogged on Zeugma. Catherine (now Easton) presented a later version of the paper at BILETA 2009, subsequently published in JILT 2009 (3) as An examination of clicker technology use in legal education.

This paper presents research centred on the cultivation of students in a large lecture environment. It attempts to tie together students’ prior expectations of university teaching with their actual experience and to determine how this affects engagement and ultimately progression. This session focused in particular upon students’ response to the use of interactive ‘clicker’ technology to teach legal principles and encourage student engagement.

The undergraduate law degree at MMU is dependent upon a combination of large group (250+ students in one lecture) and small group (12-15 students in a group) teaching, with the greater weight spent on whole group teaching.

Numerous sources illustrate the difficulties in fostering an active learning environment via the ‘traditional’ lecture – Yorke & Longden (2007:39) suggest that some students find attendance at lectures particularly stressful. Nevertheless, resource implications are likely to prohibit moving significantly away from a lecture-based model on the law programme, given its high recruitment. Previous small scale studies in the law school indicate that students place great weight on lectures as an aid to learning – it is therefore imperative to explore ways of working within the available resources to make lectures as supportive to learning as possible.

As year 1 leader the presenter has begun to explore these issues further by undertaking a series of focus groups with students covering a wide range of issues pertaining to the delivery of the course. A key theme emerging from these groups is that students, while acknowledging lecturer autonomy, found certain lectures were more useful than others as an aid to learning.

Their comments demonstrated:

• a need for increased student interactivity within the lecture (for example questions, exercises, collaborative working)
• a desire for more directed reading prior to lectures, specifically linked to lecture outcomes
• that lectures were perceived as having a different function from textbook or written material – hence lectures sticking closely to existing material were perceived as less valuable

Yorke (1999:25-29) highlights that among other factors the quality and organisation of teaching are critical in ensuring student engagement and minimising both the number of early leavers and those who do not succeed on the course. Within the context of MMU’s strategic vision to foster a culture of independent, autonomous learning there is a need to test student responses to alternative strategies for large group teaching in order to deduce its impact on engagement and progression.

As part of a research study into fostering engagement on the LLB a trial has been developed to determine the effectiveness of audience response systems, also known as ‘clickers’ within a large lecture environment. Research (for example Judson & Sawada, 2002) has shown the beneficial ability of response systems to provide immediate feedback and enable a lecturer to manipulate presentation based upon students’ understanding of a topic. Other studies (for example D’Inverno, 2003) focus upon use of the technology to promote collaborative learning and discussions. Many of these studies have been carried out in technical, science-based subjects (for example West, 2005) with a minimal body of research surrounding its potential for transforming legal education.

This paper presents the findings from an exploratory study into the use of interactive technology in large lecture environments to teach public and criminal law, placed within the context of the pedagogical rationale for using audience response systems.

References

• D’Inverno R, Davis H & White S (2003) ‘Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction’ Teaching Mathematics and its Applications 22(4):163-169
• Judson E & Sawada D (2002) ‘Learning from past and present: electronic response systems in college lecture halls’ Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 21(2):167-181
• West J (2005) ‘Learning outcomes related to the use of personal response systems in large science courses’ Academic Commons 9 December
• Yorke M & Longden B (2007) The first year experience in higher education in the UK (PDF file) York: Higher Education Academy
• Yorke M (1999) Leaving early: undergraduate non-completion in higher education London: Falmer

Sefton Bloxham (University of Cumbria) reports:

Catherine explored the advantages and disadvantages of using interactive audience response systems (‘clickers’) in the classroom to promote greater student engagement and improve retention.
 
Based on feedback from focus groups that had identified student demand for greater interactivity in large lectures (250+ students), the presenter had conducted a research project to investigate the potential of clicker technology as a tool for learning. The accompanying full paper provides a review of the research literature on the topic, albeit based mainly on case studies in the sciences.
 
Appropriately, and bravely(!), participants were issued with clickers and invited to participate by responding to a range of questions designed to illustrate the different uses to which this technology can be put. The ensuing session clearly demonstrated the potential for engagement, interactivity and peer to peer discussion, as some questions demanded discussion prior to providing a shared response. Immediate feedback was provided on participants’ responses, which in turn was utilised to follow up on the thinking that informed specific responses. These two examples were used to dispel suspicions that the technology was limited to invoking ‘surface’ learning responses to multiple choice questions.
 
In addition, the technology provides comprehensive data on student attendance at lectures, although it was acknowledged that this aspect is problematic as a rationale for the use of the technology. One other potential hurdle is the physical difficulty of issuing and collecting the clickers when dealing with large classes. A possible solution to this challenge was suggested – that clickers could be embedded within the institutional IT infrastructure as fixed components in lecture theatres. Additionally, one participant reminded us that the technology can be combined with mobile technology, thus removing the need to provide any hardware, as virtually all students already possess a mobile phone.
 
In conclusion, this was a lively and engaging presentation, based on sound research, effective use of the technology (I remain in awe of the presenter’s command of it, although that may merely reflect my own inadequacies!) and a rigorous case study, which clearly demonstrated the potential of the technology to promote greater student engagement with the learning process. This was one of the most interesting presentations that I attended during the conference.

Comments on the session:

• Chris Hull (St Mary’s University College): “A thoroughly engaging and interactive session. Hands on use of the clicker gave a real insight into the advantages and potential issues raised by the technology.”
• Rhonda Hammond-Sharlot (Staffordshire University): “This session was absolutely fantastic, it was good fun, but much more than that, the work was well researched, and the argument for using the technology put forward really well, underpinned by other research into using it. I know others dispute the millenium learner concept, but I am convinced that today’s students are very different animals to the traditional students we were in the 1970s and 1980s, and they know this type of technology exists, and will vote with their feet when picking institutions – which is what makes this research so vital.”

About Catherine Catherine Russell is a senior lecturer in the School of Law at MMU.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010