The art of the impossible: the practicalities of being a new law teacher

In her paper Jessica Guth (University of Bradford) looked at the practicalities of being a new law teacher.

Since the Learning in Law Annual Conference Jess has developed her paper further. The case for time turners: the practicalities of being a new law lecturer appeared in The Law Teacher 43(2) July 2009, along with two further articles on the new law teacher experience.

Much of my first year as a lecturer has been about getting to grips with teaching several hours every week, with preparation, with delivery and with the species that is ‘the student’. This paper considers my experience of learning about teaching and learning in law and trying to put some of what I have learnt into practice. It highlights the practical aspects of ‘being a law teacher’ and trying to engage students in the study of law.

18 months into the job, am I getting any closer to the kind of law teacher I want to be?

Becoming a law teacher

What really matters is what we think we are trying to do when we conduct the business of the university. Until and unless we satisfactorily identify what that business is, and thus identify what the business of the law school is, discussion of other matters is entirely redundant.

— Bradney 2003: 63

While law degrees in other jurisdictions are essentially vocational, leading straight into practice, the purpose of a law degree in the UK has been subject to debate from the start. Relatively recently law degrees have been described as “vocational, but with a strong academic content” (Baroness Warnock, 1989, cited in Cownie et al 2007: 129).

A linked debate surrounds approaches to law teaching. Traditional doctrinal law teaching focuses on the technical application of legal rules without much consideration of the social, political or economic context in which that law operates. Socio-legal studies acknowledge that law cannot be seen (and thus taught) in a vacuum. Those coming from a doctrinal approach often also favour the law school as a training ground for lawyers. A full discussion of these debates is beyond the scope of this paper, however Cownie (2004) gives a useful overview. The writings of William Twining (for example 1967, 1994, 1998), Tony Bradney (2003) and Fiona Cownie (1999 and 2004) are amongst many other useful sources.

I feel strongly that I do not want to provide training for future lawyers, but that law as an academic discipline can and should be made accessible and interesting to students. I want to provide a liberal legal education and allow my background in socio-legal research to shape my approach to teaching.

Cownie tells us that “overall being a good teacher is an important part of the professional identity of legal academics” (2004: 129), but commentators have expressed concern about the lack of knowledge of and interest in pedagogy in the law school. (See Webb 1996, Cownie 1999, 2000). Personally, I felt that being a good teacher required at least basic knowledge of pedagogic issues and theoretical considerations.

While there are many educational theories and approaches to teaching and learning, I do not yet feel able to evaluate them fully. I do however feel comfortable picking those ideas which make sense to me. I can identify with an approach to teaching which focuses on facilitating student learning, and indeed Prosser & Trigwell’s approach to teaching inventory placed me very firmly in the ‘student centred’ camp (1999). The inventory is designed to explore the way that academics go about teaching in a specific context. It consists of a series of statements which are ranked on a Likert type scale. In spite of recent criticism of the inventory (see Meyer & Ely 2006) it provides a useful starting point for reflection.

Biggs notes that “when there is alignment between what we want, how we teach and how we assess, teaching is likely to be much more effective than when there is not” (1999: 23). He goes on to suggest that “constructive alignment makes the students themselves do the real work”. This approach moves away from the idea of the teacher as knowledge or information transmitter and towards the idea of a teacher as a facilitator of learning, and experience as key to learning (see Dewey 1938, Ramsden 2003, Lindblom-Ylänne et al 2006, Postareff et al 2007). This gives me the scope to understand my role in providing a liberal legal education as one of making learning possible, providing the tools and framework for students to gain content rather than providing or even defining the content itself.

Practicalities of teaching

I have now completed my first year of teaching and have had the opportunity to engage with some of the teaching and learning literature. Moon’s model (2002) of module design is widely regarded as one which is both useful and pedagogically sound. Figure 1 below shows the model, which takes as its central point the idea of learning outcomes from which most other elements then flow:

Kerr (1971) suggested that curriculum designs should be based on objectives, content, methods and evaluation. This is similar to Ramsden’s five issues (2003): goals and structure, teaching strategies, assessment, evaluation and accountability. I preferred to use this as my starting point to build my own module because I was concerned about rushing straight for the learning outcomes. Adam (2004:4) has noted that LOs are not unproblematic: “[the] detail of the approach to outcomes…can limit learning and stifle creativity as well as dumb down teaching”.

I would argue that Bradney’s quote at the start of the paper not only applies to the wider context of legal education, but should also form the starting point for the design of a law curriculum and individual law modules. Once I have clearly established what it is I am trying to achieve, the content of the module and appropriate teaching methods can be selected and an assessment strategy for formative and summative assessment developed. In other words, the whole curriculum can be aligned. As Ramsden put it: “logically there can be no such thing as teaching if the teacher does not know what he or she wants the students to learn” (2003: 124).

There may be a plethora of other factors to consider, ranging from timetabling issues to available resources, from programme or discipline specifications to professional standards and benchmarks or expectations of external stakeholders. Largely these are ignored in the literature around curriculum design, and authors simply take for granted that we all work within our institutional and disciplinary boundaries. Adam suggests that “modules are not developed in a vacuum but within a dynamic and interactive set of factors that directly link the internal, institutional world, with the external national qualifications framework and quality assurance systems” (2004:9).

While it is difficult to think outside the institutional rules and regulations or simply the ‘this is the way we do it’ mentality, I believe it is worth doing. As Ramsden rightly notes, “decisions about which methods to use to teach and assess our students should be based on their effectiveness as a means of encouraging high quality learning outcome” (2003:120), not, I would suggest, on what the institution currently thinks is possible.

Teaching sessions: lecturing and tutorials

Standing up in front of a lecture theatre full of students is daunting and undoubtedly akin to a performance (Cownie 2004, Lang 2008). I felt that tutorial teaching was a far less artificial situation than lecturing, as I could use teaching techniques and activities taking the focus away from me and putting it on the students themselves. I could play to my strengths as a facilitator and try to help students to develop their skills and knowledge. I could build a rapport and be much more active in catering for different learning styles and student needs. I was better able to control domineering group members and encourage non-participants (Race 2001).

I also found that the things I did naturally and instinctively in small group teaching were exactly the kinds of things the literature was suggesting. I suspect that my own biography plays a part in this – the fact that my parents and many of my friends are involved in aspects of education at different levels is likely to have influenced how I think about teaching and education.

For me the most difficult thing about tutorial teaching was the repeat teaching. I taught every tutorial at least twice, and some three times. Keeping up the same levels of enthusiasm and energy for three hours in a row is a tall order, and I have yet to find a solution. On the other hand, repeat teaching is a useful learning tool for the tutor, as changes can be made from session to session in order to improve the learning experience and iron out any problems. Care has to be taken not to treat all groups the same, but to be flexible and receptive to student needs.

Dealing with students: crowd control and mentoring

I had not given student behaviour all that much thought when I began teaching. I was quite surprised to find that students seemed to think nothing of walking in very late, that mobile phones were routinely used in lectures (and not just for texting) and that talking to peers during sessions seemed to be regarded as something normal. Lang (2008) suggests that in most cases rude and disruptive behaviour is the result of boring teaching, and that “a well taught class is the best preventative measure you can take” (2008: 252). I agree to a point, but I think it is more complicated than that. Race argues that “sometimes there is no easy solution for disruptive behaviour” (2001:156), and his view seems more in line with my experience.

Interestingly, I had more problems with student behaviour in small group sessions than in lectures. Behaviour in tutorials can be extremely problematic when it is an entire group that is being non-cooperative. I have taught the same session to different groups and had completely different reactions. In the first group all students were fully engaged, discussed the questions and activities set in small groups, reported back to the rest of the class competently and in some cases innovatively commented on how they had found the session useful and fun. In the second group I explained the task and handed out the instructions in the same way as I had done before and was met with silence, raised eyebrows and folded arms – I do not know what I did differently or what the problem was,.

I have found little in the literature which helps me to explain and deal with this situation. Race (2001) considers conflict which can occur in group work, but does not consider the possibility of the whole small group deciding not to participate in the teaching session. Gibbs & Habeshaw (1989) suggest buzz groups if a group is silent or unresponsive, but that did not work with this particular group. From that early session onwards almost every group work task was met with hostility. I felt powerless and more than a little lost.

I was tempted to abandon all group work and ‘fun’ activities for those sessions and resort to individual written work or alternatively have more of a question and answer session – the easy option in terms of controlling the class. Instead, however, I put my efforts into designing activities which would engage them. It took until the end of the second semester, but in the last few sessions I began to see a change in attitude and the group dynamics changed. The sessions felt altogether more positive. I am still not sure what the problem really was or what resolved it in the end. However, I was determined to win them over, and they highlighted that it is worth persevering.

Brabazon rightly notes that “being a teacher is a privilege to never take for granted. The bond between students and educators is not severed when a certificate is presented. We share a memory of change, of difference, of feeling that we can change the world, one person at a time” (2007:1). Mentoring individual students, guiding them on their path through university and equipping them with the necessary skills to be able to make their own choices and take their chances (Bradney 2003) is as much part of my job as standing in front of the classroom delivering predesigned teaching sessions.

I try to heed the warnings of colleagues, training courses and writers such as Lang (2008) not to get too involved and refer to other university services where appropriate, but for me the distinction between academic and personal issues is not always (or even often) clear cut. Sometimes all students need is a ‘sounding board’ or a conversation to become inspired, sometimes all they need is a little confidence, and sometimes they need to hear someone else’s story.

Where am I 18 months on?

18 months into my lectureship I feel that I am beginning to understand what it is I am trying to do. Educational theory in a practical context is beginning to make sense. I am beginning to learn how students think and work and how different teaching techniques can impact on groups in different settings. I am still scared witless by the mere idea of lecturing, but I do it several times a week and maybe it is getting easier.

What this paper has not done is consider how to find a balance between teaching and research as well as administrative duties. That in itself may demonstrate that there is very little balance – the focus has been on teaching.

References

The arguments in this paper are developed further in Jess’ articles ‘My conversation choices and chances: becoming a law lecturer in the 21st century’ (Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education 2008: 6(1)) and ‘The case for time turners: the practicalities of being a new law lecturer’ (The Law Teacher 2009:43(2)).

• Adam S (2004) Using learning outcomes: a consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing ‘learning outcomes’ at the local, national and international levels (PDF file; paper presented at the UK Bologna Seminar, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 1-2 July 2004)
• Biggs J (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university Buckingham: SHRE/Open University Press
• Brabazon T (2007) The University of Google Aldershot: Ashgate
• Bradney A (2003) Conversations, choices and chances: the liberal law school in the 21st century Oxford: Hart
• Cownie F (1999) ‘Searching for theory in legal education’ in F Cownie (ed) The law school: global issues, local questions Aldershot: Ashgate
• Cownie F (2000) ‘The importance of theory in law teaching’ International Journal of the Legal Profession 7(3):225-328
• Cownie F (2004) Legal academics: culture and identities Oxford: Hart
• Cownie F, Bradney A & Burton M (2007) The English legal system in context Oxford: OUP
• Dewey J (1933) How we think New York: Heath & Co
• Dewey J (1938) Experience and education New York: Collier
• Gibbs G & Habeshaw T (1989) Preparing to teach Bristol: Technical and Educational Services
• Kerr J (1971) ’The problem of curriculum reform’ in R Hooper R (ed) The curriculum: context design and development Milton Keynes: Open University Press
• Lang J (2008) On course London: Harvard University Press
• Lindblom-Ylänne S, Trigwell K, Nevgi A & Ashwin P (2006) ‘How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context’ Studies in Higher Education 31 (3):285-298
• Meyer J & Eley M (2006) ‘The approaches to teaching inventory: a critique of its development and applicability’ British Journal of Educational Psychology 76:633-649
• Moon J (2002) The module and programme development handbook London: Routledge
• Postareff L, Lindblom-Ylänne S & Nevgi A (2007) ’The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education’ Teaching and Teacher Education 23(5):557-571
• Prosser M & Trigwell K (1999) Understanding learning and teaching Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press
• Race P (2001) The lecturer’s toolkit London: Kogan Page
• Ramsden P (2003) Learning to teach in higher education London: Routledge
• Twining W (1967) ‘Pericles and the plumber: prolegomena to a working theory for lawyer education’ Law Quarterly Review 83:396-426
• Twining W (1994) Blackstone’s Tower: the English law school London: Sweet & Maxwell
• Twining W (1998) ‘Thinking about law schools: Rutland revisited’ Journal of Law and Society 25:1-13
• Webb J (1996) ‘Why theory matters’ in J Webb & C Maughan (eds) Teaching lawyers’ skills London: Butterworths

About Jess

---

Jessica Guth is a lecturer in employment and European law at Bradford University Law School. She joined the law school in August 2007, having previously worked as a research fellow, and is due to complete her PhD shortly.
 
Her research interests include a variety of issues in employment and EU law, legal education and law as an academic discipline, and work around socio-legal and empirical approaches to research and teaching.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010