What is excellence in law teaching?

Each year many good and dedicated law teachers are nominated for the Law Teacher of the Year award – how does the judging panel decide between them? What do we value in a teacher and what is it that makes someone exceptional? And if we could define them, are the qualities which make for an excellent law teacher innate or can they be learned?

Based on the paper In search of the x factor: reflections on accounts of excellent teaching in law she presented at the 2008 Society of Legal Scholars Conference, here Tracey Varnava (UKCLE) looks at the evidence from the literature, outlining how it is reflected in the Law Teacher of the Year judging process and considering the implications for academic development.

---

On this page: evidence | LTOTY 2008 findings | implications for academic development | references

Evidence from the literature

“I can give you no rules [for effective teaching], for there are as many good ways of teaching as there are good teachers.”

— as argued by mathematician and educator Polya in 1957, quoted in Hativa et al 2001

A range of studies over many years has sought to investigate excellence in teaching. In 1976 Kenneth Feldman attempted a systematic synthesis of research on the views of US students. He found that the following characteristics were consistently associated with effective teaching:

• stimulation of interest
• clarity
• knowledge of subject matter
• preparation and organisation
• enthusiasm for the subject and for teaching

Other characteristics such as friendliness, helpfulness and openness were ‘preferred’ characteristics, but did not appear to be influential in determining how students graded their teachers on evaluation questionnaires.

Feldman published further research in 1988 that attempted to rank the characteristics of effective teaching as defined by both teachers and students. He found that clarity, and teacher preparation and organisation were the most important teaching characteristics as perceived by teachers and students. Next in importance were stimulation of interest, motivation of students to reach high standards, encouragement of discussion and openness to others’ opinions, and communication skills.

A range of studies (for example Hativa et al 2001) have all tended to agree that exemplary university teachers are well prepared and organised, present the material clearly, stimulate students’ interest, engagement and motivation to study, are enthusiastic, encouraging and have positive rapport with students.

More recently, studies such as those by Sarah Moore & Nyiel Kuol (2007(a) & 2007(b)) and Gad Yair (2008) have focused on asking alumni to recall experiences of excellent teaching. Moore & Kuol found that their sample was more likely to mention teacher attributes than actions. In particular, these former students focused on the importance of concepts such as ‘belonging to a community’, being ‘understood and cared about’ and ‘welcomed and respected’ as a member of the class. They conclude that:

…our data suggest that the…dominant message among this group of respondents relates excellent teaching more to something that you are than to something that you do, and more to interest in and focus on the student than to command over the subject.

Yair (2008) also found that former students focused particularly on the personal characteristics and attributes of the lecturer involved in their recollection of key educational experiences, leading him to conclude that “that key experiences in higher education had affective bases”.

Other studies have focused on teachers’ views of what constitutes good teaching. Andrews et al (1996), in a study carried out at the University of Calgary, interviewed excellent lecturers, as identified by faculty members, about how they defined teaching excellence. It was found that they believed that excellent teaching was based on the interaction between valuing the subject matter, valuing the student and valuing the process of teaching.

The lecturers in this study wanted to make the learning meaningful to students, and to achieve this they thought it was important that material should be relevant to students’ interests and lives. They aimed to help students become self reflective and to take responsibility for their own learning. They focused on the intellectual bond between lecturer and student and the importance of honesty, integrity and openness in the relationship.

A recent study by Marian Fitzmaurice (2008) has echoed many of the findings of this research. Her approach was to analyse the philosophy of teaching statements written by lecturers in higher education, and found that the following aspects of teaching were important to them:

• helping students to learn
• encouraging the student voice
• developing students as people
• being reflective about teaching practice

Fitzmaurice argues that the lecturers in her sample express professional values and morality, evidenced by their deep concern for their students and the focus in their statements on the importance of integrity, respect and ethics in their relationships with students. While there is support for her findings from the earlier study by Andrews et al, it should also be noted that Fitzmaurice’s sample consisted of statements from lecturers who had participated in a postgraduate certificate in teaching and learning in higher education. It is possible therefore that their perspectives and understandings may be different to those of lecturers who have not undertaken a similar programme.

The subject specific dimension

There is some evidence from the literature that different disciplines may vary in the priority which is placed on the different characteristics of excellence described in the generic research outlined above (see for example McPhee et al 2005). Also, Prosser et al 2003 found that in science and engineering students tended to be less positive in their evaluation of teaching than students in arts and social science, which suggests that there is something discipline specific about the pedagogy which influences judgments about how good a learning experience has been.

Key findings from Law Teacher of the Year 2008

For the purposes of the 2008 competition nominators were asked to provide evidence against four criteria:

1. Interest in and development of learning and teaching techniques and approaches.
2. Imagination and/or creativity in relation to the design of the student learning experience.
3. Effective communication skills that engage students in the learning experience.
4. Involvement in scholarly activities that have influenced and enhanced learning.

For 2009 we rephrased criterion one to focus more on the outcomes of the approaches used rather than on the methods or techniques themselves. The new criterion reads as follows:

• Displays an active interest in and development of approaches to teaching that influence, motivate and inspire students to learn.

Although we were not aware of it at the time, the primary findings from the 2008 process generally fit very neatly with the findings from the literature on excellence in teaching. The student voice in the process was particularly persuasive and illuminating. Positive comments about approachability and reliability were common to all shortlisted candidates, as was appreciation of good organisation and a structured approach to teaching. Students valued being treated with respect and as partners in the learning process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they most commonly referred to excellent communication skills as a key feature of outstanding teaching. By this they encompassed both the written and spoken word, and also the listening skills of their teacher. It should also be said that on the evidence collected, a tendency to tell bad jokes is also a feature of the excellent law teacher.

This reference to the use of humour is common throughout the literature. For example, Moore & Kuol (2007) found that the most frequently occurring emotional reference among the alumni in their study of the emotional dimensions of educational experience relates positive learning to humour, laughter, enjoyment and fun. What is unresolved, however, is the question of whether such experiences imply something pedagogically important. Certainly one of our finalists was in no doubt that the use of humour to instil learning was an important teaching device, reporting:

You get them to laugh…and then you can hit them with what you want them to remember.

Other aspects that seemed to come through particularly strongly in our study of law teachers was the importance of creating a community of scholars that encompassed the student. Our shortlisted candidates, and particularly the two winners, referred on several occasions to working in partnership with students, bringing them into the academic community as co-travellers on the journey of discovery. It was clear that these candidates were able to make difficult subjects clear to their students by connecting with them at the appropriate level, without being patronising. One academic colleague referred to this ability, commenting:

His textbook shows that he’s got ways of explaining things that are different to the ways that other textbooks do and probably show that he’s trying to see things through the students’ eyes, the way that they would approach it rather than just presenting it as an expert.

Linked to the idea of the community of scholars and the creation of an environment of high academic standards and intellectual curiosity is the concept of ‘academic virtuosity’, which was noted in the study by Yair (2008) and also comes through from our data. This encompasses the idea of the excellent teacher as a passionate exponent of their subject who inspires and excites students. The following quote from a student sums up the idea of academic virtuosity:

He loves everything about [his subject]. He knows everything. [He] never missed the smallest detail. You can rely on what he says. It’s reassuring. [He has a] wide ranging knowledge about many things.

However, this academic did not thereby exclude or intimidate his students. On the contrary, they were inspired and engaged by his ability to navigate the complexities of the subject and to reveal its many vistas to the students. They felt included and empowered by the knowledge that this teacher was able to share with them.

Implications for academic development

Skelton (2004), in his review of the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme, argues that ideas of teaching excellence are not fixed and immutable but shaped by the economic, social and political context. Nonetheless, leaving aside questions of how it is valued relative to research, it is clear that few if any universities would not promote themselves on the basis of their teaching credentials. Many institutions now have formal structures in place to ensure that new staff undergo some form of pedagogical training, and there are increasing expectations that all staff will undertake staff development activities in relation to improving their teaching performance. The increasing reliance by ‘consumers’ on student surveys as measure of teaching success also adds to the pressure to address the issue of teaching ‘standards’. The question is, how can we best ensure the conditions that will lead to teaching excellence, in the light of the findings from the literature and from the LTOTY data?

The dominant approach to academic development in higher education is predicated on the assumption that good practice can be identified, that it can be shared, and that through support and instruction, over time, all teachers can achieve a level of competence which would enable them to provide a satisfactory learning experience for their students. As someone who has worked in the area for many years, I recognise the limitations of this model, but in the absence of a national training scheme for higher education teachers it has been the least controversial route towards a general improvement in teaching standards. However, the weaknesses become even more apparent if we accept the overwhelming evidence of the data that while what teachers do is important, the effectiveness of their actions is mediated or perhaps even dictated by who they are as people. As Moore & Kuol (2007) argue:

…the emotional dimensions of learning may ‘unlock’ positive engagement with the learning of a topic.

They also go on to suggest that academic developers need to look more closely at what makes teaching interesting to students and to teachers as a starting point in designing more effective environments for learning.

An illuminating aspect of this research is the relative unimportance of the techniques of teaching and the absolutely crucial role which personal attributes, beliefs and values play in the constitution of the excellent teacher. As Fitzmaurice puts it:

…becoming a good academic practitioner is not just about mastery of techniques, approaches and methods but involves responsibility, professional intentions and ethical care.

References

• Andrews J, Garriso D & Magnusson K (1996) ‘The teaching and learning transaction in higher education: a study of excellent professors and their students’ Teaching in Higher Education 1(1):81-103
• Feldman K (1976) ‘The superior college teacher from the students’ view’ Research in Higher Education 5:243-288
• Feldman K (1988) ‘Effective college teaching from the students’ and faculty’s view: matched or mismatched priorities?’ Research in Higher Education 28:291-344
• Fitzmaurice M (2008) ‘Voices from within: teaching in higher education as a moral practice’ Teaching in Higher Education 13(3):341-352
• Hativa et al (2001)
• McPhee et al (2005)
• Moore S & Kuol N (2007a) ‘Retrospective insights on teaching: exploring teaching excellence through the eyes of the alumni’ Journal of Further and Higher Education 31(2):133-143
• Moore S & Kuol N (2007b) ‘Matters of the heart: exploring the emotional dimensions of educational experience in recollected accounts of excellent teaching’ International Journal for Academic Development 12(2):87-98
• Prosser et al (2003)
• Skelton A(2004) ‘Understanding ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education: a critical evaluation of the National Teaching Fellowships Scheme’ Studies in Higher Education 29(4):451-468
• Yair G (2008)

Last Modified: 4 June 2010