2013 NDSLS Education Report

The notre dame sydney law society

Annual Education Report August 2013

I. INTRODUCTION This inaugural Annual Education Report formulates what the Notre Dame Sydney Law Society (NDSLS) consider to be realistic recommendations to the Dean that may improve our Law School. There are five in total.

In semester one, the NDSLS said: “There is always room for improvement. We should not be complacent about the education we receive, but engage with the system to better it. 2013 sees the arrival of a new Dean of Law, which is an opportunity for fresh dialogue and a serious review into our education.”

This report began with a period of broad consultation of students. The aim was to get as much feedback as possible. We asked students to take a fresh look at it all and get on board. Integral here was our Education Survey (survey), which was released in early March online. There was a fantastic response rate from students, approximately 10%, which adds to the credibility of the survey and, ultimately, this report’s recommendations.

For the sake of brevity, the report focuses on arguments for improvements, and therefore on perceived deficiencies that might be remedied. We hope it does not come across as overly negative, but rather as positive food for thought and possible goals.

The NDSLS is very thankful for all the hard work of Deans, lecturers and staff that goes into the education we receive. All too often this goes unnoticed in the background and is not fully appreciated.

Raw data from the collected responses can be provided on request.

1

II. ‘TEACHING AIDS’ Recommendation One: Lecturers could be more engaging and effective should their oral lectures be accompanied by ‘teaching aids’. It should be a goal for all lecturers to work towards including one such teaching aid in each of their classes.

Questions one to four of the survey relate to how ‘teaching aids’ should be used to accompany oral lectures. We use the term ‘teaching aids’ loosely, referring to all in-class teaching methods besides oral presentation. The majority opinion is that lecturers merely talking to the class are not as engaging and beneficial to learning as when this is accompanied by something.

As to what that something might be, the provision of summaries of lectures seems very popular, allowing students to better follow the flow of the oral lecture. These lecture summaries should probably involve more than just providing the students with headings and a few case names.

Other popular aids, according to the survey, were the use of PowerPoint slideshows, diagrams, white boards and close reference to the textbook. Students are frustrated when they do the required readings for a week to find that the week’s lecture is not closely related, and it is a disincentive to do the readings at all. In the authors’ experience, close (and not superficial) reference to the textbook in classes can be as effective as the provision of lecture notes.

Several students included greater use of ‘teaching aids’ in comments on what they would change most about teaching methods in the Law School. For example: “PowerPoints should be uploaded to Blackboard the day before the lecture and should outline what will be covered in class - that way you have some structure to your notes and are able to map your study rather than just writing down every single word the lecturer at the front says”.

2

III. OPPORTUNITIES TO ‘LEARN BY DOING’ IN CLASS Recommendation Two: Opportunities to ‘learn by doing’ in class would be more effective if prepared for specific issues and questions for discussion and solving in specific times during each class.

Question five of the survey asked “How do you feel about the opportunities to discuss concepts, solve problem questions and ‘learn by doing’ in class each week?” The Law School has prided itself on the use of seminars and all classes in a subject being taught by the one lecturer, without bringing in outsider tutors less familiar with the course to help provide relevant opportunities for learning by practice and application.

According to the survey, approximately half of students felt opportunities were adequate, whilst the other half disagreed. For the authors, such sharp division in student opinion appears slightly bizarre. Probably, it relates to the obvious fact that different students learn differently, yet we also wonder whether it reflects some of student frustration in the partly related issue of the compulsory participation assessment technique.

One problem with compulsory participation is that, especially where lecturers do not prepare specific issues and questions for discussion and solving in class, students are compelled to interrupt the flow of class by comments and questions that are only vaguely relevant. For this reason, some students lament not using the traditional two hour lecture and one hour tutorial model popular at other universities.

Asked what they would change most about teaching methods in the Law School, many students went on to comment on a lack of ‘learning by doing’, for example:

3

-

“It would be nice for the 3 hour law seminars to be broken down into 2 components - a 2 hour lecture and a 1 hour tutorial. This would allow adequate time to apply what has been learnt and to feel prepared for exams”;

-

“One of the great things about Notre Dame is the class sizes and (potential) opportunities to participate in class if desirable. The law classes aren’t split up into lectures and tutorials, but rather one large tutorial. The lessons should be approached more in the fashion of a lecturetutorial split. Some teachers prefer to tell you all the content (and whilst allowing questions), many don’t actively seek out the contribution of many students. I think there are many students who often may feel lost but tend to let the lecturer drone on and, in turn, let themselves tune out, not required to participate. I appreciate the concept of adult, selfdirected learning but everyone learns differently, and perhaps some students aren’t getting the most out of their education from having a lecturer just sit and talk for three hours”; and

-

“Due to the growing class sizes in Law, a change from the 3 hour compulsory workshops to 2 hour non-compulsory lectures… and a 1 hour compulsory tutorial, with smaller numbers of 5 – 8 students”.

The authors do not necessarily argue for dividing the seminar into a separate lecture and tutorial. However, we submit that student satisfaction regarding the opportunities for ‘learning by doing’ in class might increase if lecturers were to better organise and prepare specific issues and questions for discussion and solving in specific times during class. This need not be assessable (also discussed below.)

This submission is supported by responses to survey question six; nearly 75% of students expressed desire for lecturers setting more clearly defined weekly or fortnightly ‘homework’ tasks to be discussed in class, as a way of preparation for class.

(This statistic is interesting in revealing that students want to work hard, and actually appreciate employing techniques to help motivate them.)

4

IV. 10% CLASS PARTICIPATION MARK Recommendation Three: Inclusion of a 10% class participation mark is desirable, but is useful only when lecturers have a defined system for scoring this. It would be ideal if lecturers developed such systems without simply relying on their memory.

Question eight’s direct survey question on feelings towards the 10% class participation mark showed, in the authors’ opinion, a notable disapproval (37% of responding students).

We have already touched on one problem with this assessment of 10%: especially where lecturers do not prepare specific issues and questions for discussion and solving in class, students are compelled to interrupt the flow of class by comments and questions that are only vaguely relevant.

The following student commentary (in response to what, if anything, they would like to see changed most about assessment methods) sums up a second major concern: “The class participation mark is fine if lecturers don’t generalize and award a majority of students an average mark like 6/10 or something. I know it happens and I know lecturers often have no idea who they’re scoring whey have to mark for class participation.”

5

Hence, we would suggest that the 10% class participation mark is useful, but only where lecturers decide on systems for accurately recording individuals’ contributions. (This recommendation compliments our second recommendation.)

V. REDUCING NUMBER OF UNITS IN DEGREE Recommendation Four: Work to reduce the number of units in the degree.

This is the standout recommendation. A very high proportion of students have adverse feelings towards the number of units in the degree. In question 13 of the survey, asked “How do you feel about the number of units in your degree?”, 53% responded “It seems reasonable”. However, 47% responded “It seems unreasonable”.

Further, question 14 shows 18% are not planning to complete their degree within the set time “because the full-time workload is too much”.

6

Finally, to the question “Which, if any, of the following units might be combined with another unit, or otherwise removed?�, the table below shows, for selected subjects: 1. Percentage of respondents indicating they might be either combined or removed; 2. Percentage of respondents likely to have actually started or finished the subjects at the time of responding; and 3. (Most relevantly) percentage of respondents likely to have actually started or finished the units and who indicated they might be either combined or removed.

7

Combine or remove (%)

Legal Research and Writing Legal Process Legal History Criminal Law B Principles of Contract Law B Principles of Torts B Contemporary legal Issues Principles of Equity Property Law B The Law of Trusts Advocacy Administrative Law B Evidence B Constitutional Law B Commercial Practice and Ethics Civil Procedure B Remedies International and Comparative Law Legal Philosophy Alternative Dispute Resolution

61

Respondents likely to have actually started or finished the subject at the time of responding * (%) 100

Respondents likely to have actually started or finished the subject and who responded combine or remove ^ (%) 61

72 48 37 29

100 100 89 71

72 48 42 41

37

71

52

71

71

100

34

71

48

24 34 16 40

47 47 47 29

51 72 34 100

35 29

29 29

100 100

16

29

55

37 14 19

29 29 29

100 48 66

27 18

8 8

100 100

* Percentages based on the demographics collected, generalising that everyone is doing a five year course ^ Assuming that the ones who answered combine/remove were from among those who have actually started or finished the subject

8

Clearly, the results are remarkable: -

For 7 subjects, 100% of students likely to have started or finished them think those subjects should be considered for combining with other subjects or otherwise be removed from the degree’s curriculum; and

-

For 14 subjects, more than half of students likely to have some familiarity with those subjects would consider combining or removing them.

It is conceded that a small part of these results may be dismissed as a cheeky ‘please reduce my course as much as possible’ attempt. However, that the bulk of student response was sincere is supported by the fact that, consistent with fewer respondents having actually experienced third, fourth or fifth year subjects, there were fewer responses advocating for the combination/removal of these more senior level subjects.

Moreover, the authors’ experience is that those who did not fill out the survey would have given the same results. We would interpret the results as meaning not so much that most students favour abolishing most of the units as most students favour changing and reducing the degree structure generally.

There appears to be student dissatisfaction grounded in: -

particular subjects being unnecessarily drawn out into Parts A and B, with seminars not efficiently running for three hours;

-

overlap between subjects;

-

cumulative volume of workload and assessments;

-

our Law School being unique in consisting of so many units; and

-

associated monetary costs.

The recommendation that follows is obvious: work to reduce the number of law units in the degree. We refrain from offering advice on methods for doing so, as this is probably beyond our capabilities. There were many respondents elaborating in a section on “What, if anything, would you like to see changed most about your degree structure?”, which you may refer to.

9

VI. LAW COMMON ROOM Recommendation Five: Plan to provide a common room for law students.

Law students were asked how they would describe seating/lounges around campus.

They responded:

They were also asked how they would feel about the Law School obtaining its own common room.

10

The most common response in the open question of what, if anything, respondents would like to see most in the way of additional university facilities referred to a law common room.

The reasons for one are clear: -

It would be another place for group study (in the library, there are only two dedicated group study rooms);

-

It would assist getting to know other law students, as a space for relaxing but also “for a strong network of peers, both older and younger, in their area of study”;

-

It “sets us back from the other universities” and

-

“The only place where you can sit indoors and eat is the ping pong room, where the seats are all taken and you run the risk of being hit in the head by a flying ping pong ball… It makes going home and skipping class more desirable than it should be!”

Students recognise that, given the location of our university and the premium attached for space, provision of a law school common room may be unrealistic, though still worth considering.

The NDSLS might be happy to provide microwave, kettle and some other necessities.

11

VII. CONCLUSION To conclude, the NDSLS hopes their views are positive food for thought and possible goals for education development at the uni. We have identified five recommendations.

Recommendation One: Lecturers could be more engaging and effective should their oral lectures be accompanied by ‘teaching aids’. It should be a goal for all lecturers to work towards including one such teaching aid in each of their classes.

Recommendation Two: Opportunities to ‘learn by doing’ in class would be more effective if prepared for specific issues and questions for discussion and solving in specific times during each class.

Recommendation Three: Inclusion of a 10% class participation mark is desirable, but is useful only when lecturers have a defined system for scoring this. It would be ideal if lecturers developed such systems without simply relying on their memory.

Recommendation Four: Work to reduce the number of units in the degree.

Recommendation Five: Plan to provide a common room for law students.

Going forward, the NDSLS would, if desirable, be pleased to discuss these and other educational concerns of the student body with the university.

12