Kobe, Session 1, Transactional Learning, Theory & Practice


Published on

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide
  • Transactional learning is active learning, not passive. In that sense, we want students to be involved in activities within legal actions, rather than standing back from the actions and merely learning about them. transactional learning goes beyond learning about legal actions to learning from legal actions we aim to give them experience of legal transactions. Transactional learning involves thinking about transactions. It includes the ability to rise above detail, and "helicopter" above a transaction; or the ability to disengage oneself from potentially damaging views of the group process, and re-construct that view Students are valuable resources for each other. Collaborative learning breaks down the isolation and alienation of what might be regarded as isolated or cellular learning. There is of course a place for individual learning, silent study, and the like. But students can help each other enormously to understand legal concepts and procedures by discussing issues, reviewing actions in a group, giving peer feedback on work undertaken in the group, and so on. And perhaps what is even more important is that they begin to trust each other to carry out work that is important. In other words, students begin to learn how to leverage knowledge amongst themselves, and to trust each other’s developing professionality (learning about know-who, know-why, as well as know-what within the firm). Often, we have found, if there are firms that are not producing good work or keeping to deadlines, it is because they do not know how to work together effectively; and this often arises from a lack of trust. Transactional learning ought to be based on a more holistic approach. Allowing students to experience the whole transaction- and all the different parts- not just the actual procedure but how this may affect the client and how you may have to report this to the client. Transactional learning of necessity draws upon ethical learning and professional standards. There are many examples of how students have had to face ethical situations within the environment – some are ones where we have created a situation with an ethical issue- others have arisen unexpectedly. E.g mandate example ( if time) 7 & 8: Students are taking part in a sophisticated process that involves taking on the role of a professional lawyer within the confines of the virtual town and firm. In order to enhance the learning experience they must be immersed in the role play- and to do that they must be undertaking authentic tasks. Research suggests that when students are involved with online environment similar to the virtual village- that these authentic settings have the capability to motivate and encourage learner participation by facilitating students ‘willing suspension of disbelief’. This allows them to become immersed in the setting.
  • The project aimed to address the educational and management issues of implementing an environment such as the one we have just demonstrated to you. These have been identified elsewhere in this presentation and are brought together this slide. Personalized and collaborative learning, how you use a simulation project and how this relates to other modes of learning, use of rich media and finally the matter of creating an authentic environment with authentic tasks.
  • So what are we doing in the project: We are creating- indeed have created – tools which allow academics to build simulations similar to the one you’ve seen here. These can be highly structured, closed boundary simulations as well as loosely-structured, open-field simulations We’re developing guidelines for academics, support staff, IT staff and students. There is a tool for the creation of the map and directory and communication tools. We are mentoring a number of partner projects and also evaluating the experience for future users.
  • Kobe, Session 1, Transactional Learning, Theory & Practice

    1. 1. Transactional learning: theory and practice Professor Paul Maharg Glasgow Graduate School of Law
    2. 2. s imulations… <ul><li>Are close to the world of practice , but safe from the (possible) realities of malpractice and negligent representation. </li></ul><ul><li>Enable students to practise legal transactions , discuss the transactions with other tutors, students, and use a variety of instruments or tools, online or textual, to help them understand the nature and consequences of their actions </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate a wide variety of assessment , from high-stakes assignments with automatic fail points, to coursework that can double as a learning zone and an assessment assignment </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage collaborative learning . The guilds and groups of hunters/players in multi-player online games can be replicated for very different purposes in FE & HE. </li></ul><ul><li>Students begin to see the potential for the C in ICT ; and that technology is not merely a matter of word-processed essays & quizzes, but a form of learning that changes quite fundamentally what and how they learn . </li></ul>
    3. 3. authenticity as transactional learning… <ul><li>Transactional learning: </li></ul><ul><li>active learning </li></ul><ul><li>through performance in authentic transactions </li></ul><ul><li>involving reflection in & on learning, </li></ul><ul><li>deep collaborative learning , and </li></ul><ul><li>holistic or process learning, </li></ul><ul><li>with relevant professional assessment </li></ul><ul><li>that includes ethical standards </li></ul>
    4. 4. SIMulated Professional Learning Environment (SIMPLE) <ul><ul><li>General aims: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>personalized learning in a professional environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>collaborative learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>use of simulation spaces in programmes of study, and the relation between simulation spaces and other learning spaces on a programme, including paper-based and online resources, face-to-face classes, and administration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>use of rich media in online simulations – video, graphics, text, comms., etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>authenticity in the design of simulation tasks, and effective assessment of professional learning </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. what has the SIMPLE project done? <ul><li>Provided academic staff in UK universities with software tools to design and build simulations and collate all of the resources required </li></ul><ul><li>Developed teaching, learning and assessment templates, including curriculum guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Provided tools to create a map and directory for a virtual town </li></ul><ul><li>Enabled communication between students and simulated characters/staff </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring and mentoring functions </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluated student and staff experiences in using the simulation environment </li></ul>
    6. 6. large-scale implementation in disciplines Discipline Degree programme Institution Architecture BSc (Hons) / year 3 Strathclyde U. (1) Management Science BA (Hons), year 1 Strathclyde U. (1) Social Work MA (Hons), year 2/3 Strathclyde U. (1) Law LLB, year 1 Glamorgan U. (1) Law LLB, year 2/3 Stirling U. (2) Law LLB, year 3 Warwick U. (1) Law LLB, year 3 West of England U. (1) Law Diploma in Legal Practice, p/g Strathclyde U. (6)
    7. 7. k ey tool – narrative event diagram <ul><li>Enables academic member to build simulation ‘blueprint’ and collate all the resources required for the sim </li></ul><ul><li>Process and tool allow for highly structured, closed boundary simulations as well as loosely-structured, open-field simulations </li></ul><ul><li>Provides potential for simulation import / export </li></ul><ul><li>Tool itself has development potential </li></ul>
    8. 8. example of a NED
    9. 9. correspondence workspace
    10. 10. Ardcalloch directory
    11. 11. map of Ardcalloch
    12. 12. e xample 1: personal injury negotiation project <ul><li>Administration: </li></ul><ul><li>272 students, 68 firms, 8 anonymous information sources – PI mentors </li></ul><ul><li>68 document sets, 34 transactions </li></ul><ul><li>Each scenario has embedded variables, called from a document server, making it similar, but also unique in critical ways </li></ul><ul><li>students have 12 weeks to achieve settlement </li></ul><ul><li>introductory & feedback lectures </li></ul><ul><li>discussion forums </li></ul><ul><li>FAQs & transaction guideline flowcharts </li></ul><ul><li>voluntary face-to-face surgeries with a PI solicitor </li></ul>
    13. 13. PI project: assessment criteria <ul><li>We require from each student firm a body of evidence consisting of: </li></ul><ul><li>fact-finding – from information sources in the virtual community) </li></ul><ul><li>professional legal research – using WestLaw + paperworld sources </li></ul><ul><li>formation of negotiation strategy – extending range of Foundation Course learning </li></ul><ul><li>performance of strategy – correspondence + optional f2f meeting, recorded </li></ul>
    14. 17. statistics
    15. 18. statistics
    16. 19. PI project: (some of) what students learned <ul><li>extended team working </li></ul><ul><li>real legal fact-finding </li></ul><ul><li>real legal research </li></ul><ul><li>process thinking in the project </li></ul><ul><li>setting out negotiation strategies in the context of (un)known information </li></ul><ul><li>writing to specific audiences </li></ul><ul><li>handling project alongside other work commitments </li></ul><ul><li>structuring the argument of a case from start to finish </li></ul><ul><li>keeping cool in face-to-face negotiations </li></ul><ul><li>more effective delegation </li></ul><ul><li>keeping files </li></ul><ul><li>taking notes on the process... </li></ul>
    17. 20. PI project: what students would have done differently… <ul><li>‘ In tackling this project I think that our group made two main mistakes. The first mistake we made was in approaching the task as law students as opposed to Lawyers. By this I mean we tried to find the answer and work our way back. Immediately we were thinking about claims and quantum and blame. I don't think we actually initiated a claim until a week before the final settlement. I think the phrase &quot;like a bull in a china shop&quot; would aptly describe the way we approached the problem. […] Our group knew what area of law and tests to apply yet we ended up often being ahead of ourselves and having to back-pedal </li></ul><ul><li>The second mistake we made was estimating how long it would take to gather information. We started our project quite late on and began to run out of time towards the end. None of us appreciated the length of time it would take to gather information and on top of this we would often have to write two or three letters to the same person as the initial letter would not ask the right question.’ </li></ul>
    18. 21. PI project: what students would have done differently… <ul><li>‘ At the beginning we thought we perhaps lost sight of the fact that we had a client whom we had a duty to advise and inform. On reflection we should have issued terms of engagement and advised the client better in monetary terms what the likely outcome was going to be.’ </li></ul><ul><li>‘ […] unlike other group projects I was involved in at undergraduate level I feel that I derived genuine benefit from this exercise in several ways: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. reinforcing letter-writing, negotiation, time-management and IT skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. conducting legal research into issues of quantum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>working effectively in a group as a group - not delegating tasks at the first meeting and then putting together pieces of work at the second meeting.’ </li></ul></ul>
    19. 22. PI project: tempo & complexity
    20. 23. PI project: tempo & complexity
    21. 24. o pen and bounded transactions: the differences … Bounded field, ie transaction tends to … Open field, ie transaction tends to … 1. Learning outcomes (L O s) & assessment Precise learning outcomes, with simulation tasks based closely on outcomes – pre-defined LOs Bodies of evidence required to be produced to benchmark standards, but less emphasis on pre-specified outcomes 2. Alignment with traditional learning & teaching methods Teaching is aligned with tasks & outcomes, often according to an academic structure, eg lecture-seminar; learning is heavily ‘pushed’ by curriculum structure Teaching is provided where needed according to learners’ needs, often according to a professional, just-in-time learning structure; learning is ‘pulled’ by learners 3. Operational model Linear domain procedures, eg predictable document chain – more operationally predictable More varied, open or diffuse domain procedures, eg transactional guidelines but no specific document chain – less operationally predictable 4. Student outputs Specific documents, drafted to specific standards, eg initial writ; fixed or correct versions expected as student output Procedures that involve a variety of documentation, or documents that cannot be specified easily in advance, eg negotiated agreements; various versions acceptable 5. Resources Resources are tied closely to tasks and learning outcomes – highly model-driven Simulations resources are not linked to tasks; learner needs to structure transaction through interactive querying of resources – highly learner-driven
    22. 25. e xample 2: Private Client <ul><li>General outline: </li></ul><ul><li>Students wind up the estate of a deceased client who dies intestate, via 4 assignments. Students draft: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial Writ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Estate Valuation Correspondence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Completion of IR Forms: C1, IHT 200 & supplements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a will </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Resources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>no lectures, no exams: instead, tutorials and coursework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>50 scenarios </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>virtual collection of the client’s estate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>online assessment & submission of assignments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FAQ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>online tutor assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>on average, six outcomes per assessment </li></ul></ul>
    23. 26. <ul><li>Online tutor assessment </li></ul><ul><li>( Estate Valuation tasks) </li></ul>e xample 2: Private Client
    24. 27. f uture directions for SIMPLE <ul><li>Improvement of the interface </li></ul><ul><li>Further research – areas include: </li></ul><ul><li>- variation of student learning in simulations </li></ul><ul><li>- nature of ‘long conversations’ between students and between students and facilitators / coaches </li></ul><ul><li>- effect of disciplinary content on simulation design </li></ul><ul><li>- variation of local professional/educational practice in the international arena </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration within a CoP </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration across disciplines and internationally. </li></ul>
    25. 28. contact details <ul><li>SIMPLE: http://simplecommunity.org </li></ul><ul><li>These slides & resources at: ht t p:// </li></ul><ul><li>Email addresses: paul.maharg@strath.ac.uk </li></ul>