1. Evaluating the ‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative in
Law
Mr Warren Barr
&
Dr Robert Stokes

2. Overview
 Background: The ‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative
 Module Design
 Two Examples: Equity& Trusts, Commercial
Law
 Evaluating the Initiative
 Internal Processes, CLL Project
 Potential and Pitfalls

3. Background:
The ‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative

4. Traditional ‘Law’ Delivery
 Professional Subject
 Required Modules – 7 subjects (225 credits)
 250+ students per required module
 100+ for optional modules
 Traditional Delivery & Assessment
 24 Lectures + 5 Small Group Teaching Tutorials/Seminars (12
per group)
 Traditional Assessment Methods
 Issues
 High volume of repeat teaching
 Lack of student engagement (preparation, participation)
 Feedback Issue

5. No Single Model Adopted
‘Teach Smarter’ is a change in
ethos not a single blue-print for
module design or delivery

6. ‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative
 Rethinking Delivery
 Structured and more engaging learning:
• E-support and e-tasks
• Emphasis on collaborative work (e.g. group work)
• Emphasis on student engagement
• Structured learning – pre- and post- delivery
engagement
• Improved feedback
 Staff Workload Benefits:
• More research time through less repeat teaching
• More engaging delivery

7. Module Design:
Two Examples

8. Example 1: Equity (Required)
 30 credit module (‘long, fat’)
 48 lectures + 10 tutorials for 250+ students
• Repeat Teaching
 Groups of 12 students = 21 tutorial groups
 Delivery Hours: 105 per Semester = 210 hours
 Directed reading and lecture slides available on VITAL
 Tutorial Preparation:
• Students Conduct Individual Preparation and Participate In
Interaction With The Tutor
 Feedback: Informal, and Formal on Assessments
 Assessment: 25% coursework (Sem 1); 75% unseen
examination

9. Example 1: Equity (Required)
 48 lectures + 6 seminars for 250 + students
• Repeat Teaching
 Groups of 30 students = 9 Seminar Groups
 Delivery Hours: 54 per Semester (2 hr Seminars) – 108 hours
 Directed reading, pre- and post- group work (in, podcasts and other e-
learning support materials on VITAL
• Students Prepare Directed Reading
• Split Into Sub-Groups of no more than 6 students
• Prepare unseen questions in group
• Write up a question as a group after completion of Seminar
 Additional Feedback:
• Group Essay Feedback + Guideline Answer per Question
• MCQ Self Test Feedback
 Assessment: 25% coursework (Sem 1); 75% unseen examination

10. Change in Learning Ethos
TTutor
T

11. Example 2: Commercial Law
(Optional)
 Different Approach:
• Comparative Delivery Savings over of 1/3rd
 Module Delivery:
• No lectures
• 10 Hours Seminars replace 5 hours Tutorials
 Retains emphasis on group work
• Extensive support materials, including Seminar
Podcasts and MCQs per topic and follow-up
exercises
• Feedback: Podcasts (on seminar performance);
Group Work Feedback, Marked Formative Essay,
Assessed Plans

12. Evaluating The Initiative:
Internal Processes & CLL Project

13. Internal Processes
 Student Surveys 2009-10
 Equity & Trusts
• Positive reception to new model
• Improved engagement
• Too much content
• Group work problems
 Commercial Law
• Positive reception to new model
• Seminar materials praised
• Positive response to feedback
• Group work problems
• Lectures popular

14. Evidence – Equity & Trusts
 Over 93% of respondents felt that VITAL was well used,
particularly in providing sources for seminar study and in
supplementing lecture provision
“Very useful and found them a lot more helpful than tutorials that
occurred for other modules. Learnt a lot more in seminars from
discussions with others in the seminar and also in sub group work”
“the seminars do work very well - I have found them rewarding, and
they have helped to clarify areas I was still hazy on following
lectures and reading”
“the level of feedback given far surpasses that in any other module,
and is helpful”

15. Evidence – Equity & Trusts
 Some criticism:
 “There are too much to cover in one seminar with a high speed
train rushing through the session. Why cover 3 chapters when
one is more than enough”
 “If group work is preferred, punishments should be given to those
who were not involved. Penalty seems too lenient, many got
away by saying they are down with swine flu but I saw my group
mate attended the lecture!”

16. Evidence – Commercial Law
 90% felt seminars made a contribution to their
learning beyond that of private study
 93% felt that the seminar materials were either
good or very good
 86% were either very or fairly satisfied with the
feedback they received.

17. Evidence – Commercial Law
 Some criticism:
“However, the seminars were pretty good. If possible, I would just
add lectures to the current seminars, then it would be simply great
module to study”
“The feed back to the only formative assessment essay was
extremely poor and I was highly disappointed after putting work into
it not getting a detailed personal feedback”
“I strongly believe having lectures will help students connect with the
module much better”
“If there were no lectures, my tuition fee's should have been
reduced.”

18. CLL Review
 Methodology
 Student Focus Groups: Nominal Group
Technique
 Online Survey (student)
 Online Survey (staff)
 Staff Interviews

19. Preliminary Observations
 First Year Feedback
 Enablers
• Importance of directed reading
• Opportunity for engagement
• Structured learning
 Disablers
• Tutorial atmosphere
• The free-loader problem
• Unrealistic reading lists

20. Preliminary Observations
 Second Year Feedback
 More fractious than Year One
 Concerns over feedback and communication
 Problems with collaborative work
 Support for structured learning and new forms
of feedback, e.g. podcasts

21. Concluding Remarks
Potential and Pitfalls

22. Potential
 Real Savings In Delivery
 Gains not in the first year but in subsequent years
 Should definitely be a pay-off in freeing up research time,
important for early academics
 Better Student engagement
 More directed and effective
 Increased transferable skills
 Staff benefits from learning ethos
 Better learning atmosphere – collaborative learning
 Better knowledge of students and student performance

23. Pitfalls
 Entrenched attitudes
 Front loading
 Too easy to underestimate workload involved in preparing
materials and rethinking delivery
 Role of individual tutor
 Feedback, Quality, Approachability
 Group Work and Communication
 Know What They Have To Do
 Better Guidance

24. Conclusions
 Too early to be sure
 Potentials seems to outweigh pitfalls
 Students not harmed
 Final assessment results are on a par or better than in previous
year
 Student Experience Will Improve As
Progresses
 Provisional View: Qualified Success