Using an enquiry-based learning project to develop criminological understanding

In his paper Paul Almond (University of Reading) presented Project Panacea, an enquiry-based learning project aimed at enhancing student engagement and performance.

The session was blogged on Digital Directions. Paul’s slides are embedded below, and his full paper appeared in the Web Journal of Current Legal Issues 2009(3) in June 2009.

Paul provided an insight into ways of developing and implementing enquiry-based learning (EBL) techniques into the legal curriculum, demonstrating how the key features of this sort of learning activity can be realised within the structure of an existing, orthodox, assessment regime.

While much of the use of EBL in law has to date focused on the inculcation of semi-vocational ‘lawyering’ skills and the simulation of legal practice activities as a method of enhancing conceptual understanding, this paper focuses explicitly on the ways that EBL can be used to enhance theoretical understandings in non-substantive legal subjects such as criminology. As a result, the skills learned are more research- than practice-oriented in nature.

Project Panacea was designed to encourage students enrolled on a final year module in criminology to develop a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the links between criminological theory and policymaking within the criminal justice system. One of the established learning outcomes for the module requires students to “apply theoretical criminological concepts to practical issues within the field of crime, law and social control”. In the past students have tended to take a simplistic view of the theory-policy relationship and to lack the ability to explain how conceptual issues translate into practical criminal justice outcomes. The new assessed work project, contributing 30% of the module mark, was developed to address this issue and align assessment activities with learning outcomes.

Students were given a client-based task focused on meeting the needs of a fictional client, the Minister for Justice, who required a research report to guide the allocation of government funds on crime prevention measures. The project was presented in the form of an official press release and project briefing from the Ministry of Justice, plus a video from the minister broadcast during a lecture (later made available as a podcast on the VLE). Students were given a hypothetical £100m budget to allocate to selected criminal justice policy options, each of which cost between £12-40m, and had to justify their choices with reference to criminological research, theory and evidence.

The project was reflexive in order to mirror the reality of government policymaking, meaning that some details of the project, the items and goals, changed (in a carefully managed way) as the project progressed. Memos, e-mails, and podcast updates were used to introduce these changes.

Students participated in a non-assessed group presentation exercise tied in to the project during a tutorial in the spring term, presenting on one aspect of the project’s implementation (advising on the usefulness of biological and psychological accounts of criminality, in order to address criticisms the minister had faced).

This project constituted an original and engaging way of providing students with a greater understanding of the policymaking process. Feedback indicated that they enjoyed the project: “I have to express my gratitude for this Project Panacea idea. Never before I had so much fun while learning and expressing my knowledge in a project wonderfully designed to stimulate a student’s mind” (student e-mail feedback).

The standard of the assessed work submitted and the results obtained were very high, demonstrating that the students had internalised and understood the theory-policy relationship as a result of having to forge these links and justify them to an external client. In particular, performance in relation to the specific learning outcome of “applying theoretical criminological concepts to practical issues” was considerably improved.

The project constituted a form of enquiry-based learning exercise – by delivering a set of specific outcomes the students developed a more focused approach to presenting issues. The ability to present proposals clearly and concisely, and to justify decisions convincingly, constitutes a transferable academic skill that students can apply in future.

Carol Brennan (University of Buckingham) reports:

Paul’s objective was to enable students in the non-substantive subject of criminology to undertake assessed work illustrating and involving them in the translation of theoretical concepts into practical criminal justice policy. Project Panacea consists of a detailed fictional scenario of a minister for justice requiring the expenditure of £100m on a range of criminal justice policy options. Students must allocate the expenditure, justify this in terms of criminological theory and implement their policies in the face of changing circumstances and requirements.
 
The project is delivered to students through video (including a member of Paul’s family as a non-Equity performer!), memos, e-mails and podcasts. The assessment is written and counts for 30% of the module, while there is also an additional non-assessed group presentation.
 
Paul has documented not only student satisfaction with this active involvement in bridging the theory/practice gap but also improved module grades, illustrating the extent to which students were internalising the learning outcomes.

About Paul

---

Paul Almond is a lecturer in the School of Law at Reading. As well as developing his research interests in relation to regulatory crime, health and safety law, and the role of public perception in the criminal justice system, he has developed a portfolio of teaching experience across the LLB programme, acting as module leader for criminal law and criminology and working to incorporate innovative approaches to assessment and feedback.
 
Paul was awarded Reading’s Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice in 2007 and is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010