• Save
Technology and Legal Education: Learning substantive law and simulating legal practice
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Technology and Legal Education: Learning substantive law and simulating legal practice

on

  • 1,295 views

Presentation given to the Commonwealth Law Conference 2009 in Hong Kong

Presentation given to the Commonwealth Law Conference 2009 in Hong Kong

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,295
Views on SlideShare
1,285
Embed Views
10

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 10

http://www.slideshare.net 8
http://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Also included some BA Legal Studies students and open to a wide range of students potentially
  • Also included some BA Legal Studies students and open to a wide range of students potentially
  • Also included some BA Legal Studies students and open to a wide range of students potentially
  • Also included some BA Legal Studies students and open to a wide range of students potentially
  • Also included some BA Legal Studies students and open to a wide range of students potentially
  • Also included some BA Legal Studies students and open to a wide range of students potentially
  • Also included some BA Legal Studies students and open to a wide range of students potentially

Technology and Legal Education: Learning substantive law and simulating legal practice Presentation Transcript

  • 1.
    • Technology and Legal Education:
    • Learning substantive law and
    • simulating legal practice
    Michael Bromby - Research Fellow School of Law and Social Sciences Glasgow Caledonian University Scotland, UK
  • 2. Overview
    • Learning substantive law
      • Civil (medical law)
      • Criminal (eyewitness evidence)
    • Simulating clinical or practical skills
      • Evaluating eyewitnesses
      • Hiring an expert witness
    • Running themes
      • International / commonwealth
      • Interdisciplinary aspects
    • Conclusions
  • 3. Healthcare Law and Ethics
    • Level 3 optional module for LLB
    • New in 2004/05
    • Wide range of topics:
      • Consent
      • Medical negligence
      • Infertility and childlessness
      • Genetics
      • End of life issues, inc abortion, euthanasia
  • 4. Classroom Limitations
    • Time constraints (1 hour)
    • Varying levels of preparation
    • Dialogue slow to get going
    • Feedback
      • Individual
      • Within group
      • Between groups
  • 5. Discussion Boards
    • Replicate traditional seminar
    • Asynchronous timings
      • Flexibility
      • Encourage reflective thinking and learning
      • Greater care over written submissions
      • Confidence and courtesy
    • Start with face-to-face seminars
      • Establish cohort identity
    • Give clear expectations and instructions
      • Rule book
      • Assess student input
  • 6. Internationalisation
    • Partnership projects:
      • Glasgow Caledonian University (Scotland)
      • Gloucestershire university (England)
      • Adelaide University (Australia)
      • Marquette University (USA)
    • Similar taught modules
    • Different jurisdictions
  • 7. Internationalisation
    • Issues and solutions
      • Access to Institution’s VLE (i.e. all materials)
      • Freely available software (phpbb hosted board)
      • Establishing an identifiable cohort/group
      • Pre-task (discuss the rules)
      • Grouping students
      • Colour-code students by jurisdiction
  • 8. Internationalisation
    • Issues and solutions
      • Students not fully aware of jurisdiction!
      • Tutor input to encourage ‘stating the obvious’
      • Encouraging voluntary participation
      • May need to ask partners to assess ...
      • Bias for time difference
      • 9am GMT is okay for UK & AU ...
  • 9. http://www.solicitr.com/2009/04/01/law-students-demonstrate-for-more-lectures/
  • 10. Eyewitness Identifications
    • Modelled decision making by experts
      • Legal rules and directions (R v Turnbull)
      • Published research in psychology
    • Introduced discretionary ‘fuzzy rules’
      • Common practice
      • ‘ If’s and ‘but’s
      • Attempt to reduce shades of ‘grey’
  • 11. ADVOKATE
  • 12. ADVOKATE
    • Series of questions using html browser
    • Not case or scenario specific
      • Generic tool for most jurisdictions
        • England & Wales (R v Turnbull)
        • Scotland (HMA v McAvoy)
        • Ireland (People v Casey)
        • Canada (CRIMJI model instruction)
        • Australia (uniform Evidence Acts)
        • New Zealand (Evidence Act)
        • South Africa (S v Webber)
  • 13. ADVOKATE
  • 14. ADVOKATE
  • 15. Summary of ADVOKATE
    • Designed as an investigative aid
      • Police officers
      • Public prosecutors
      • Defence agents
    • Could be a research/educational tool
      • Law students
      • Law profession
        • Pre-trial (lawyers)
        • Mid-trial (judiciary)
  • 16. Simulating Practice
    • SIMPLE – Strathclyde University platform
      • Player roles
        • Student groups
      • Non-player roles
        • Experts
        • Court staff
      • Blueprint for interactions
        • Standard responses
        • Templates for ease of use
  • 17. Hiring an Expert
    • Collaboration with University of Dundee
      • Forensic Anthropology students
        • Require experience of ‘being hired’ and registering with an ‘expert body’
      • Law students
        • Require experience of hiring and instructing
      • Staff
        • Can automate responses or assume ‘roles’
  • 18. SIMPLE
  • 19. Second Life
  • 20. Second Life
    • Virtual worlds
      • Meeting place (and features legal offices)
      • Create objects (fixed or moveable)
      • Communication (written and verbal)
      • Simulation (but not reality)
    • Legal services
      • Access to information and advice
  • 21. Students Exploring Legal Services
    • The Rules of the game
    • Exploration and Orientation
    • Legal Services & Dispute Resolution
    • Property ownership
    • Trademarks and copyright
    • Contractual Disputes
    • Defamatory/Offensive Material
    • ‘ Virtual’  offences (against the person)
    • Age issues and child protection
    • Financial Services / Money Laundering / Gambling
  • 22. Conclusions
    • Technology
      • It is developing: so must students & profession
      • New forms of communication: new problems?
    • Education
      • Problem-based learning: instigates debate
      • Simulating scenarios: develops skills
      • Formative (automated) feedback
  • 23. Contacts
    • Michael Bromby, Division of Law,
    • Glasgow Caledonian University,
    • Scotland, UK
    • Homepage: www.bromby.vze.com
    • Email: [email_address]