Research and reaction: bodies and PCs

Nigel Duncan and Michael Chapman, City Law School, City University

Presentation at Vocational Teachers Forum III, 10 January 2004

This paper from the third Vocational Teachers Forum updated the attempts at City Law School (presented at LILI 2003 – Evaluating student-centred curriculum design) to introduce student directed classes. Faced by negative feedback, the authors have sought to maintain their objectives while responding to concerns by introducing new streams of practice and feedback opportunities as well as the use of WebCT.

The City Law School has sought a number of ways in which to assist with the attitudinal shift involved in becoming a professional rather than a student. Over recent years we have introduced student directed classes which provided students with a task with clear outcomes to undertake. This either led into a subsequent tutor-led class, produced material for students to e-mail to their tutor, or provided further opportunities for practice and peer feedback of specific skills. One of a number of aims was to develop students’ professionalism by encouraging responsibility for their own learning.

During this time the School conducted surveys into students’ attitudes to these classes. Questionnaires showed them to be less popular than tutor-led classes, but nevertheless showed over 70% identifying them as helpful with practising skills and 60% identifying them as helpful with skills development. This study was supported with focus group work, where students were initially asked (through a pyramiding technique) to identify the best characteristics of the Bar Vocational Course (BVC). One (but not another) group identified the structured student directed classes as fifth equal best. Our enquiries thus showed some reason to hope that these classes were playing a useful role and were recognised by at lest a significant proportion of students as valuable.

At the same time another aspect of our quality control was taking place. Each group of 12 has a representative. The represenatives meet regularly to provide feedback to deputy course directors. These sessions carry a dynamic of their own. A theme which developed was a dislike of classes where no tutor was present, with the focal concern related to the cost of the course. Given the level of fees students expected a tutor in front of them. This tendency was reinforced by informal processes over which no provider has any control. Students speak to their sponsors, to prospective pupillage supervisors and others in their Inns and at Cumberland Lodge, and they complained about the value of the course with particular reference to the student directed classes. These complaints were fed through to the Bar Council and pressure came upon us to respond.

This pressure took a particular sharp focus at a Bar Council visit in early summer. Although the Bar Council had been supportive of our experiments in this field, we were now told that we must abandon the student directed classes. We understand the pressure on the Bar Council, no criticism is implied in relating this tale. However, we raise the question whether we might establish mechanisms whereby the complaints of a few, fuelled by the political dynamic of a profession with an inherent scepticism that anyone not a member of that profession can prepare students for it, can be tested by proper research findings rather than immediately acted upon.

How have we responded to this situation? We still intend:

• To enhance feedback on skills.
• To give our students responsibility for their learning.

To achieve the former we have introduced staffed practice and feedback sessions and timetabled half groups of students to practise their skills before a different tutor, in addition to the existing practice of receiving video reviews of their advocacy work from their personal tutor. This has proved very popular.

To achieve the latter we have introduced virtual classes. WebCT Vista 2.0 was introduced across City University in September 2003, and ICSL was the first School to go live. Analysis of students’ previous experience of computer-based learning showed that most of them were coming to it for the first time. In particular, only 8% of BVC students had previously used online discussion boards as part of their academic studies. This figure fell to 4% of students on the part time BVC.

The first student discussion sessions began in October 2003. Over the course of the first three weeks students’ involvement was closely monitored. On the full time course the typical number of students from a group who contributed to their board was three (out of a group of 12). On the part time course, this figure was eight or nine. It was also noted that the depth of student involvement on the part time discussion boards was much greater, with far longer messages being posted.

Timetabling for the full and part time courses differed. The full time discussion boards were purely ‘virtual’ – there was no formal time allocated for groups to be together in the same place. The part time groups were timetabled to begin their discussion sessions in the main ICSL lecture theatre, where they had full access to Internet-based legal subscription services and also the Law School library.

However at meetings of the part time course committee it was made clear by student representatives that they were unhappy with these ‘hybrid’ discussion board/student directed sessions. There were repeated requests for tutors to be present, although the classes were not designed in a way that would make this workable. Thus the visible absence of a tutor itself appears to generate student unhappiness.

More research is needed to evaluate the reasons for these student reactions, and also to investigate student involvement generally in e-learning.

Last Modified: 30 June 2010