Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

SIMPLE and legal learning


Published on

Slides for the presentation by Karen Barton (Glasgow Graduate School of Law) and Patricia McKellar (UKCLE) at LILAC 2009.

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

  • Be the first to like this

SIMPLE and legal learning

  1. 1. SIMPLE and legal learning Karen Barton Patricia McKellar
  2. 2. simulations in legal learning… <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 in multi-player online games can be replicated for very different purposes in legal education. </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>is active learning, </li></ul><ul><li>is based on doing legal transactions, </li></ul><ul><li>involves reflection on learning, </li></ul><ul><li>enables deep collaborative learning, </li></ul><ul><li>requires holistic or process learning, </li></ul><ul><li>facilitates ethical and professional learning </li></ul><ul><li>encourages immersion in professional role play </li></ul><ul><li>develops task authenticity </li></ul>
  4. 4. general aims of the SIMPLE platform <ul><ul><li>personalized learning in a professional environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>social presence and 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) / March, 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. Tools: <ul><li>Enables academic member to build simulation blueprint and collate all of the resources required </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>key tool – narrative event diagram
  8. 8. example of a NED
  9. 9. example of live simulation Received
  10. 10. example of live simulation
  11. 11. example of live simulation
  12. 12. example of live simulation
  13. 15. student assessment and feedback
  14. 16. student assessment and feedback
  15. 17. student assessment and feedback
  16. 18. <ul><li>Methodology: integrative evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Used mixed methods and multiple data sources to develop an overall picture of each participant’s use of SIMPLE </li></ul><ul><li>Highlighting issues, drivers and barriers </li></ul><ul><li>Allowed for the emergence of unanticipated aspects </li></ul>evaluation
  17. 19. <ul><li>Students </li></ul><ul><li>Tutors </li></ul><ul><li>Lecturers and module leaders </li></ul><ul><li>Developers </li></ul><ul><li>Support staff such as Institutional IT Helpdesk staff and the SIMPLE Core team </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Activities carried out: </li></ul><ul><li>Pre simulation </li></ul><ul><li>During simulation </li></ul><ul><li>Post simulation </li></ul><ul><li>End of SIMPLE Project </li></ul>data sources
  18. 20. data collection methods <ul><li>Observations </li></ul><ul><li>Tutor Interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Student Interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Focus groups (tutors) </li></ul><ul><li>Focus groups (students) </li></ul><ul><li>Diaries/logs </li></ul><ul><li>Student materials </li></ul><ul><li>Examining SIMPLE office </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-course card exercise </li></ul><ul><li>Post-course questionnaires </li></ul><ul><li>System statistics </li></ul>
  19. 21. <ul><li>Three evaluative levels: </li></ul><ul><li>What role does professional learning play within the partner institutions and how can and does SIMPLE contribute? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we address curricular issues in the design and development of innovative practices and the implementation of SIMPLE in particular? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the wider systemic and institutional factors that affect this form of learning? </li></ul>e valuation of SIMPLE as a transformative practice
  20. 22. <ul><li>Enhanced professional skills </li></ul><ul><li>Heightened awareness of client care </li></ul><ul><li>Improved IT skills </li></ul><ul><li>Improved understanding of the subject matter </li></ul><ul><li>Welcomed the authenticity </li></ul><ul><li>Encouraged peer review </li></ul><ul><li>Needed regular feedback </li></ul>l evel 1: student experiences
  21. 23. L evel 1: staff experiences <ul><li>Different expectations in look and feel </li></ul><ul><li>Some technical skills required </li></ul><ul><li>- some found tools ‘clunky’ </li></ul><ul><li>Most managed to operate the tools after training </li></ul><ul><li>Welcomed enhanced monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Concern about the front loading of work to create the simulation blueprint </li></ul><ul><li>Initial difficulties in simulation design and design of resources </li></ul><ul><li>Platform hosting challenges </li></ul>
  22. 24. <ul><li>Start with a simple scenario for the first attempt. </li></ul><ul><li>Run a pilot before letting students loose on it. </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t underestimate the skills you might need to get things up and running. </li></ul><ul><li>Begin the process of developing the scenario as early as possible. </li></ul><ul><li>Think in advance about how sim responses will be managed ie when/who/how often: set clear guidelines to students about how this will work. </li></ul><ul><li>Allow time to familiarise yourself with both the technological aspects ie using the tools, and also with new concepts such as the Narrative Event Diagram. </li></ul><ul><li>Plan & organise well in advance </li></ul>L evel 1: staff experiences
  23. 25. level 2: curricular themes <ul><li>Staff c ontrol: open sims vs bounded sims </li></ul><ul><li>Disruptive sims vs convergent sims </li></ul><ul><li>Identity exploration (personal + law) vs rote learning (personal + law) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge object-forming via play vs knowledge resumption by traditional means </li></ul><ul><li>Transactional learning vs conventional teaching </li></ul><ul><li>front-loading timetable vs conventional timetabling </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum organised around spaces & resources vs curriculum organised around teaching interventions & resources </li></ul><ul><li>Replay/remix/feedforward culture vs snapshot assessment culture </li></ul>
  24. 26. Level 3: the institution will change … <ul><li>Still focused on: </li></ul><ul><li>Organisations , ie LMSs, silos of knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Products , ie handbooks, CDs, closely-guarded downloads </li></ul><ul><li>Content , ie modules, lock-step instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Snapshot assessment of taught substantive content </li></ul>
  25. 27. … to accommodate social, collaborative learning <ul><li>Focus shifts to: </li></ul><ul><li>Organisation has weak boundaries, strong presence through resource-based, integrated learning networks, with open access, eg MIT & OU open courseware </li></ul><ul><li>Focus not on static content but on web-based, aggregated content </li></ul><ul><li>E-learning as integrated understanding & conversation, just-in-time learning </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of situated learning </li></ul>
  26. 28. conclusions: simulation environments <ul><li>They can enable more engaged and deeper learning in students, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels </li></ul><ul><li>They can be used to learn and assess conceptual and second-order symbolic knowledge, practice-based skills and personal achievement of integrated skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Students adapt best to new learning environments when they are aware of the expectations of them in the new arena. </li></ul><ul><li>Simulation is a disruptive heuristic and requires support. </li></ul><ul><li>Although initial workload is heavy there is payback in later years </li></ul><ul><li>T here are serious implications for institutional change and innovation </li></ul>
  27. 29. future directions for SIMPLE <ul><li>Improvement of the interface </li></ul><ul><li>Further research: </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 </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 Community of Practice </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration across disciplines and internationally </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>