Learning in Law Annual Conference 2008: (Dis)integration...designs on the law curriculum

Reports and links to papers on creativity at Learning in Law Annual Conference 2008:

• PodLaw: developing a portable learning environment to enhance the study of law – Chris Hull (St Mary’s University College) link to paper
• Fostering creativity through e-learning – Caroline Coles, Heather Conboy and Harish Ravat (De Montfort University) (read report below).
• Designing a creative and engaging curriculum for level 1 law students – Carol Howells and Jane Goodey (Open University) (read report below).
• Integration of a law module within the curriculum: a case study on the law of contract – Hazel Dawe (London Metropolitan University) (read report below).

Fostering creativity through e-learning

Caroline, Heather and Harish led a demonstration and discussion of their use of blogs, wikis and gaming in the teaching of law, introducing the idea of creating conceptual spaces for learning to foster creativity.

Blogs and wikis can aid teaching and learning by:

• encouraging collaborative learning
• supporting the engagement and retention of students, in particular those studying part time, by accommodating flexible learning within the pressures of time and cost and building a sense of community
• supporting different learning different styles

The notion of contribution beyond the session, dealing with ‘troublesome knowledge’ and enhanced reflection were presented as particular advantages of wikis as creative learning spaces.

Participants had the chance to try out using a wiki, posting and editing each others’ contributions to the topic ‘How can we introduce creativity in legal education’. This demonstrated clearly how simple a wiki is to use.

Designing a creative and engaging curriculum for level 1 law students

Carol and Jane presented an account of the Open University’s ‘Introduction to Law’ course, the first OU level 1 course in law. The course has been well received, attracting over 5,000 students in its first two years and employing 110 part time law tutors, drawn from both legal academia and legal practice.

The course is unusual in that it can be taken at any stage during a student’s period of study, challenging traditional thinking about legal study at level 1. Developed in order to incorporate skills into the curriculum, the course aims to equip students with general and legal study skills and to open up pathways of study to both legal and other curriculum areas. It is delivered online in seven blocks, supported by paper-based materials and a DVD containing video/audio clips and exercises.

As a result of the OU’s open access policy the course has attracted a wide range of students and is recognised as playing an important role in widening participation and opening up access to legal education. An integral part of the on-going development and success of the course has been the reflection on how students learn and their motives in choosing to study law, as well as responses to both the tutor and student experience. These factors play an important role in the course design – both in its subject content and skills aspects.

Integration of a law module within the curriculum: a case study on the law of contract

Hazel’s paper focused on the challenges of achieving greater integration within the law curriculum. Traditionally most academic disciplines classify subject knowledge into units – perhaps none more so than law, which is subdivided into specialisms such as contract, torts, land law, etc. This classification is a means of organising knowledge in order to facilitate learning and has many positive aspects, aiding comprehension and making it easier to find relevant knowledge when needed.

However, classification also has a negative side, leading to a compartmentalisation of knowledge. Students view each subject in isolation and find it difficult to see the links which do exist. A client concerned about a dispute with a neighbour may require advice relating to contract law, civil trespass and torts, but students who have been trained to view each subject in isolation will find it difficult to ‘change gear’ and see the problem holistically. The question therefore needs to be asked whether law should be taught using integrative learning.

On the other hand, teaching law demands a degree of specialisation which is substantially greater than is the norm in other university subjects. Law lecturers specialise in the subjects they teach, and unlike other lecturers cannot readily teach ‘across the board’. This means that the law curriculum is often fragmented into separate subjects. Modularisation has further increased this fragmentation by subdividing subjects. Where, for example, Law of Contract 1 and Law of Contract 2 are taught by different teaching teams, care needs to be taken that the two modules are taught in a manner which harmonises content, teaching methods and methods of assessment.

Contract law is taught in two modules at London Metropolitan University. Hazel outlined the attempts made to integrate the two modules, with tutors teaching on both modules to encourage familiarisation with the working practice of both modules. The goal is to improve student learning by providing a more coherent learning experience.

The question then arises whether contract law also needs to be integrated within the wider curriculum. As contract forms the basis of many civil law subjects, it would appear logical that the areas which are important to other subjects, such as land law, should at least be introduced so that students are aware of the basic doctrine. They would then find it easier to follow the further development of the doctrine in other legal arenas. Good examples would be promissory estoppel in contract, which leads to the use of proprietary estoppel in land law, or specific performance – itself not particularly important in contract but vital in land law. This requires coordination, or at least communication, with colleagues teaching in other areas of law.

A final issue on integration is the issue of assessment. Modularisation has, to some extent, led to over-assessment of students – instead of being assessed at the end of the academic year (generally in four subject areas) students are now assessed twice a year, leading to a potential doubling of the assessment load. It is therefore imperative that an overall assessment strategy integrates the various assessments students are subjected to during their degree programme.

Participants broke into two groups to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of integration across traditional subject areas. The first group produced a remarkable level of agreement (for a group of academic lawyers!) in identifying the advantages – greater flexibility, the promotion of more reflective learning and (aspirational?) greater interaction between academic staff. Disadvantages highlighted were that resources (books) and staff expertise tend to reflect traditional boundaries, that change is always a challenge, and that information management would be more problematic. The second group produced a range of suggestions – curriculum organisation around broader areas such as obligations, property and public law, the use of problem-based learning or clinic, and the use of themes such as ethics.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010