PEAT 1 Community of Practice, Meeting 2


Published on

Introductory slides for the workshop on a PEAT 1 community of practice, comprising all providers in Scotland of PEAT 1 (Professional Education and Training) programmes, convened by Paul Maharg.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

PEAT 1 Community of Practice, Meeting 2

  1. 1. PEAT 1 Community of Practice Paul Maharg Glasgow Graduate School of Law
  2. 2. workshop agenda <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Terms of community of practice </li></ul><ul><li>PEAT 1: core curriculum and elective syllabi </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing best practice: what we all bring to the table </li></ul><ul><li>Places, dates, times of next meeting </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>L ittle effective consideration of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>what professional education is </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what other professions are doing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what other jurisdictions were doing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>there are no learning outcomes for DLP </li></ul><ul><li>DLP c urriculum has become a puzzling amalgam of topics </li></ul><ul><li>there is no clear concept of linkage between LLB, DLP, traineeship, CPD </li></ul><ul><li>N o linkage of professional standards on DLP to Society’s professional standards, except where developed locally </li></ul><ul><li>R egulatory relationship is still fuzzy. Which model will be adopted? Top-down, detailed monitoring, as per SRA in England & Wales? An alternative? If so, what? </li></ul>t he past deficits: Society
  4. 4. <ul><li>L ittle effective consideration of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>what professional education is </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what other professions are doing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what other jurisdictions were doing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>u nacceptable variation in teaching, learning, assessment standards between DLP providers </li></ul><ul><li>DLP curriculum was made sense of locally by providers, who were, historically, given wide latitude by the Society; but there was almost no educational planning across providers </li></ul><ul><li>little sharing of resources, no sense of effective practice across centres, no agreed performance standards </li></ul><ul><li>little linkage with LLB or traineeship </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship with Society unclear </li></ul>t he past deficits: DLP providers
  5. 5. <ul><li>New curriculum structure, with a fresh approach to teaching, learning, assessment that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>has professionalism as its core </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is much more flexible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c onstantly learns from other professions & jurisdictions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B uilds local strength on jurisdictional knowledge, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C onstructs a national community and community standards: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>based around transactional learning, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>with the concept of professionalism at the core, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>f ounded on the values of ethical practice as defined by the profession, & as a nalysed by profession and schools, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a nd aligned with legal practice in the field </li></ul></ul></ul>w hat’s being proposed by the Society re PEAT 1?
  6. 6. <ul><li>Re Society … </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hosting annual workshop / conference on legal education (Foundation, PEAT 1, 2, CPD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Donating small funds for development of innovation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Re PEAT 1 community of practice… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer review through enhanced external examiner scheme (no new level of bureaucracy) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web dissemination of good practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Partnering in funding bids for innovative practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disseminating internationally the work of PEAT 1 providers </li></ul></ul>four initiatives for a community of practice…
  7. 7. <ul><li>Re PEAT 1 materials creation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>W e create materials for the community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>W e plan processes, content, common structures, common deadlines, licence structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We share electives or swap them </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Re sharing PEAT 1 resources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We share unilaterally where we can </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>W e charge maintenance fees where we must </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We maintain common standards of outcomes via shared experiences in materials production, Exam Boards & workshops. </li></ul></ul>four initiatives for a community of practice…
  8. 8. Open Educational Resources (OER) – MIT <ul><li>2000: OpenCourseWare initiated </li></ul><ul><li>Goal: make all primary course resources accessible on the web </li></ul><ul><li>2002: launched 50-course pilot </li></ul><ul><li>2009:1,900 courses available free online </li></ul>
  9. 9. Open University
  10. 10. Cape Town Open Education Declaration
  11. 11. Other Open initiatives… <ul><li>UNESCO Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries (2002) </li></ul><ul><li>SSRN – Social Science Research Networks </li></ul><ul><li>Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) </li></ul><ul><li>Wikipedia </li></ul><ul><li>SourceForge </li></ul><ul><li>Open-source software, eg OpenOffice </li></ul><ul><li>Mozilla Foundation (Firefox, etc) </li></ul><ul><li>Open primary resources in law, eg AUSTLII, BAILII </li></ul>
  12. 12. what are the issues involved? <ul><li>Sharing of costs </li></ul><ul><li>(Re-)usability, modification, accessability, effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Funding models </li></ul><ul><li>Quality thro’ strict peer review? Probably not: best to rethink ‘producing’, where use constitutes the production of a new resource </li></ul><ul><li>We need to rethink how institutions and PEAT 1 centres will work together as a community, not as individual silos </li></ul>Thanx to Stephen Downes,
  13. 13. <ul><li>Content is only the start </li></ul><ul><li>Process of community governance is critical, for production, use, distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Our existing institutional and regulatory structures are actually barriers to OERs, eg </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who gets funded (individuals? Institutions?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overheads calculations? (eg licensing) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is ‘sustainable’ beyond paper resources? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access / control? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structures for localizing materials? </li></ul></ul>Thanx to Stephen Downes,