Published on

  • 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
  • the the
  • powerpoint

    1. 1. Integrating the Knowing, the Doing and the Practise for Radical Curriculum Renewal . Professor Sally Kift Carrick Senior Fellow QUT, Australia International Conference on the Future of Legal Education Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, Georgia. February 20-23, 2008.
    2. 2. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia <ul><li>Where we are </li></ul>http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/australia/ Brisbane
    3. 3. QUT and Australian legal education context <ul><li>QUT : approx 40,000 students; 4 campuses; 9 Faculties; 3000 staff </li></ul><ul><li>QUT Law : approx 3,500 in undergrad, postgrad and research; 3 schools; 60 F/T law teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Law in Australia : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Undergraduate degree (F/T3-4 yrs); double degree 5yrs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>then a Legal Practice Course (F/T 6mths) or Bar Practice; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>then admitted to practice. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most states have mandatory CPD [“CLE”]. </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. “Law schools rarely teach students how to be lawyers” <ul><li>The Wall Street Journal Meet the Clients Law schools rarely teach students how to be lawyers. BY CAMERON STRACHER Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. The recent arrest of Anderson Kill & Olick paralegal Brian Valery for practicing law without a license raises a number of questions about how the ersatz Fordham graduate could have gotten away with representing corporate clients in complex litigation--without ever having gone to law school. The more salient question, however, is: Would it have mattered if he had? </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110009581 </li></ul>
    5. 5. Why radical law curriculum renewal? <ul><li>Confluence of legal and non-legal drivers </li></ul><ul><li>Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Urged curriculum re-orientation towards “what lawyers need to be able to do [rather than] anchored around outmoded notions of what lawyers need to know ” – endorsed MacCrate and Ormrod (1971, UK) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Resonated with what was happening around us </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dynamic change in both HE and legal services sectors by reason of (eg) globalisation, competitiveness and competition reform, information and communications technology, shifting knowledge and practice bases, and significant structural change </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Big changes in Higher Education <ul><li>Changing patterns of student engagement and massification of HE participation = diversity </li></ul><ul><li>Expectations of professionalism in HE learning and teaching (reflected in institutional policy) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>esp re nature of student learning (active vs passive) and assessment for, of and as learning; criterion referenced assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Students now change careers several times over working life </li></ul><ul><ul><li>50-60% of law graduates only remain in longer term legal practice </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Law School role in continuum of lifelong (legal) learning </li></ul><ul><li>Students needed knowledge, skills and attitudes to engage effectively in new knowledge economies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Beyond technical disciplinary expertise </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. “Graduate Attributes” “employability skills” <ul><li>Graduate attributes : “the qualities, skills and understandings a university community expects its students to develop during their time at the institution and, consequently, shape the contribution they are able to make to their profession and as a citizen”. </li></ul><ul><li>Bowden et al, Generic Capabilities of ATN University Graduates , ATN, 2000. http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/ATN.grad.cap.project.index.html </li></ul><ul><li>Since 1998, almost every Aust uni has its own statement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Required to embed in core curriculum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>QUT: Discipline knowledge & skills; critical, creative & analytical thinking; problem-solving; communication; life-long learning; work independently & collaboratively; social & ethical responsibility; Indigenous & international perspectives; self-reliance and leadership </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. “Graduate Attributes” “employability skills” <ul><li>Employability skills are a “subset” of GAs </li></ul><ul><li>Universities urged to play role in developing these skills </li></ul><ul><li>Employability skills: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US Partnership for 21 st Century Skills Learning for the 21 st Century (2002): workers need critical thinking, problem solving, team work and decision-making skills http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option= com_content&task = view&id =29&Itemid=42 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UK Leitch Review of Skills (2006) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>[Aust] Graduate Employability Skills (2007) ( http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/E58EFDBE-BA83-430E-A541-2E91BCB59DF1/18858/GraduateEmployabilitySkillsFINALREPORT.pdf ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>8 employability skills: communication, teamwork, problem solving, self-management, planning & organisation, technology, lifelong learning, initiative and enterprise </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>How different from MacCrate? </li></ul>
    9. 9. Consequent Law Curriculum Renewal <ul><li>To address </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First year transition and experience issues (re massification and diversity) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To “pay attention to the overall purposes and effects of [our] school's educational efforts” (Carnegie at 89) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To do so on a genuinely systematic & comprehensive basis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Efforts to improve legal education have been more piecemeal than comprehensive. Few schools have made the overall practices and effects of their educational effort a subject for serious study. Too few have attempted to address these inadequacies on a systemic basis.” (Carnegie at 190) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Whole of course approach for desirable student learning outcomes <ul><li>My School </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Whole-of-course approach to the intentional integration and incremental sequencing of knowledge, skills and attitudes (including pervasive professionalism) for progressive development and acquisition over the course of degree </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Worked with the “graduate attributes” (GAs). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Carnegie Report </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate the three “professional apprenticeships” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The “cognitive apprenticeship” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The “practical apprenticeship” and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The “ethical-social/formative apprenticeship” </li></ul></ul></ul>
    11. 11. A “staged, holistic and consultative process” (McKenzie et al , 2005) <ul><li>Step 1 – what are the learning objectives? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional to discipline knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify the attributes and the generic & discipline-specific skills required by and of our law graduates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Used multiple sources – esp MacCrate and Bell & Johnstone (UK); also international reports; employers and graduates surveys; generic and discipline research and data; QUT’s generic list of GAs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed Table of Core Skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Several rounds of feedback from graduates, staff, students, employers (through surveys & focus groups) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluated, disseminated and iterative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(eg) revisiting again this year in cyclical curriculum review </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 12. A “staged, holistic and consultative process” (McKenzie et al , 2005) <ul><li>Step 1 – what are the learning objectives? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Six desirable attributes of a law graduate determined as: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Discipline Knowledge; Ethical Attitude; Communication; Problem Solving and Reasoning; Information Literacy; Interpersonal Focus. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deconstruct GAs to identify various skills that desirably combine for student development and acquisition of them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Generic & discipline specific skills interrelate with each other and also overlap to underpin effective (holistic) skills development and the ultimate attainment of the desirable graduate attribute package </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then articulate 3 progressive levels of skills development for staged acquisition over course of degree </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. The skills identified – broadly categorised <ul><li>Attitudinal skills </li></ul><ul><li>Ethical values </li></ul><ul><li>Creative outlook </li></ul><ul><li>Reflective practice </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusive perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Social justice orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptive behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Pro-active behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive skills </li></ul><ul><li>Problem solving </li></ul><ul><li>Legal analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Legal research </li></ul><ul><li>Document management </li></ul><ul><li>Discipline & ethical knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Communication skills </li></ul><ul><li>Oral communication </li></ul><ul><li>Oral presentations </li></ul><ul><li>Advocacy </li></ul><ul><li>Legal interviewing </li></ul><ul><li>Mooting </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiation </li></ul><ul><li>Written communication </li></ul><ul><li>Drafting </li></ul><ul><li>Relational skills </li></ul><ul><li>Work independently </li></ul><ul><li>Teamwork </li></ul><ul><li>Appreciation of diversity </li></ul><ul><li>Time management </li></ul><ul><li>International perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Indigenous perspective </li></ul>
    14. 14. Aust Models for skills integration. <ul><li>Johnstone & Vignaendra Learning Outcomes & Curriculum Development in Law (2003) at 134-161 http://admin.carrickinstitute.edu.au/dspace/handle/10096/3492 </li></ul><ul><ul><li> Minimalist (largely ad hoc, general, implicit); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> More explicit (more systematic and structured – some stand alone units, some clinical, some elective); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> Integrated (where skills are built up incrementally and in a co-ordinated manner) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> Integrated Professional Legal Training into the LLB </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most Aust Law Schools w/i first two models </li></ul>0
    15. 15. A taxonomy for skills acquisition <ul><li>Step 2 – a skills taxonomy to enable embedding </li></ul><ul><li>Graduate Capabilities : qualities, skills & understandings Uni agrees its students should develop while at institution </li></ul><ul><li>Skills : broadly categorised as attitudinal, cognitive, relational & communication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Objective : level of competency expected of a graduate for each skill on graduation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrated Ability : of graduate for each skill – ie, to meet final course objective, will need to demonstrate certain abilities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3 broad levels of incremental progression for each level, skill mapped onto appropriate unit </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    16. 16. A taxonomy for skills acquisition <ul><li>Step 2 – a skills taxonomy an example </li></ul><ul><li>Graduate Capability – Communication </li></ul><ul><li>Skill – written communication/ legal letter writing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Objective – Demonstrate ability to write legal letter in plain English; “customised” depending on the purpose for which it is written by identifying whether the function of letter is (a)information (b)request (c)persuasion (d)record or a combination of these functions; utilising formalities such as salutations; for appropriate audience. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrated Ability : to level 1, 2, or 3 of the 3 broad levels of incremental progression </li></ul></ul></ul>
    17. 17. GAs: levels of attainment <ul><li>Useful conceptualisation for incremental development across years of program – eg </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FY – scoping and some enabling </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(EG) QUT Law created 3 levels (from ATN 4) – each requiring student to move through experiential learning cycle of instruction, practice, feedback, reflection & plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1 instructed in theoretical framework and application of skill – usually at generic level – practiced under guidance and feedback provided </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2 additional guidance at advanced level in authentic context – feedback provided – reflection – individual and w/i group utilise a range of skills in simple legal matter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 3 utilise skills in different contexts w/o guidance – greater complexity of discipline contexts and emphasis on relating level </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Curriculum Mapping <ul><li>Step 3 – review degree to map new learning objectives “appropriately” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>most Aust Law Schools now have done or are doing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ appropriate” re considered, sequential placement of skill (as previously for content) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ appropriate” re thoughtful alignment of skill with the subject content (eg: advocacy in criminal law, negotiation in contract law, client interviewing in torts law, etc ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quickly discovered necessity to attend to first year curriculum design in the developmental sense to provide the indispensable curriculum foundation on which to build whole-of-program profile </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Step 3 – Curriculum Mapping <ul><li>Broadly – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Starts with whole program mapping – matrix </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then each subject w/i program : how does each subject contribute to overall program development of knowledge, skills and values – having regard to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Whether taught, practised and/or assessed AND (Biggs) alignment; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To what level – (eg novice, intermediate, advanced?); </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Building on existing expertise & prior learning; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Complementing concurrent subjects; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preparing students for higher order outcomes as they progress; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Making career relevance explicit; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Forming professional identity. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review whole program looking for gaps & over-emphasis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing monitoring, evaluating & renewal over time </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Lessons learnt <ul><li>Not simple or mechanistic </li></ul><ul><li>Big culture shift for Faculty and students </li></ul><ul><li>Takes time, resourcing and commitment to transformative and integrative practices – esp authentic LT &A </li></ul><ul><li>Embed in robust program documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment challenging – we revisited in 2003… </li></ul><ul><li>Articulate Law School role in continuum of legal education </li></ul><ul><li>Need to attend to tertiary literacies of law students (esp academic literacies of reading, referencing, listening, writing and presenting orally in the discipline – “unlearning”) </li></ul><ul><li>Pervasive professionalism is hard – affective domain </li></ul>
    21. 21. What we [I] would do differently <ul><li>Be even more explicit in communication with students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Esp explicit (and constantly iterated) program roadmap for them </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Try for more “cross-integration” at higher levels </li></ul><ul><li>Be careful about over assessing </li></ul><ul><li>“ Refresh” teaching delivery </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Esp as an opportunity to deliver blended learning environments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scaffold student experience of program – first year to capstone & out </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Make (better) informed decisions about what to leave out </li></ul><ul><li>Articulate and enact the teaching/research nexus </li></ul><ul><li>Build in more peer-to-peer interaction (PASS / SI schemes) </li></ul><ul><li>Embrace the ePortfolio </li></ul>
    22. 22. Thank-you for listening Questions and Comments 0