TESTING THE WATER: Reflecting on a Trial of Assessable Group Work for First Year Law Students

by

by Ann Black
TC Beirne School of Law
University of Queensland

Introduction

'In the past I have approached group work with a very negative attitude, as my previous experiences have left a bitter taste in my mouth. There always seemed to be someone in the group do did nothing and someone who did everything.'

'I approach group work with feelings of trepidation and wariness. My previous experience with group work has always involved conflicts, disagreements and unease'

'Working in a group is not something I have done much off and at first having to make a presentation in class is an immediate turn-off'.

These comments are representative of the responses given by first year post -graduate law students when confronted with an assessable group work task. This negativity had of course been anticipated. Law students are often seen as almost innately competitive and as such the notion of co-operative work and collective assessment runs counter to their predilections. In the undergraduate intake, this can be attributed to norm-referenced assessment in schools, and that in the all important OP competition these students were high fliers in the Bands of 1 and 2. However, in 1999 the Law School commenced a post - graduate law degree, the Master of Legal Science, with an intake of students who were graduates from a wide range of disciplines, and yet, their response to group work was identical to that of the undergraduates. As a teaching and learning method, especially when assessable, group work is greeted with at best, suspicion, and at worst, hostility. So why proceed along this path? The reason is that the proposed group task seemed a more effective way to teach a particular component of the course. The subject was the compulsory 'Introduction to Law', and the component was introducing our students to the challenging and complex issues relating to access to law and justice in Australia.

 

Reflecting on Past Teaching :

This component of the course in our undergraduate degree had traditionally been taught in the standard lecture and tutorial format. In the lectures, students had been presented with a vast amount of information including:

 

• how access to the legal system was a requirement under the Rule of Law;
• the impact and extent of costs, delay, and alienation from the legal system and proposals to reduce each of these:
• the failure of substantive law to reflect the interests of all Australians;
• the findings of various Commissions and Inquiries and their accompanying recommendations;
• the provision of legal aid;
• assessments of jurists, judges and community representatives on access issues;
• how specific groups, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, age, and location in Australia may be additionally disadvantaged.

 

Usually, video extracts were shown as a means of personalising nature of disadvantage

. In tutorials, students had to discuss in their one hour tutorial session a topic such as: 'Consider the specific ways in which some groups of Australians are currently disadvantaged. Then identify measures already in place to assist in increasing their access justice and, outline what additional reforms would you recommend.'

Assessment of this component of the course had been by means of an examination question. When reading through the examination scripts, what came back was near perfect reflections of the lecture content, accented with some carefully chosen quotes or figures to demonstrate that 'extra-reading' from the recommended reading list had been done. It seemed incongruous that vital issues relating to access, for instance access of our indigenous Australians to justice and to law, could be reduced to a point list that was essentially rote learned and reproduced. It seemed clear that traditional assessment and traditional teaching methods were both inadequate. Whilst our students would have gained awareness that access was a concern for our profession, they were not facilitate to transcend that level of detachment to begin to understand the perspective of those experiencing denial of access as a personal reality .

 

The concept of Learning Baskets

Learning baskets were a modification of a teaching and learning strategy used by management which had been labeled learning mats.(Hansen 1994). Each basket was to contain a range of different materials from a variety of sources, all of which focused on the implications of law and the legal system for one group who are seen as being disadvantaged in access to justice. There were four groups selected, these being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, Migrants, Women and Children. Students were formed in a small groups to explore, select, read or watch, and then discuss the information contained in the basket. After a period of two to three weeks, they were required as a group to devise and then make a presentation to the class which demonstrates their knowledge and understanding of the issue.

 

The rationale

The learning basket model had three advantages over the lecture/tutorial method. First, it would give students an opportunity to select information from a range of varied sources, in varied forms. Second, it could promote collaborative and interactive learning. Third, skills other than writing were required: oral, organizational, and creative thinking.

 

The variety of sources

One way to begin to understand the nature of disadvantage, is to be immersed in information from a wide range of sources. Learning styles theorists have made us aware that students receive, process and retain information differently and the learning is a very individualised process. (Kolb & Smith 1986; Golay 1982). Giving a lecture in which the lecturer tries to summarise this in an hour or two, is really an inadequate way to promote student understanding. So for this reason there was a variety of stimulus material - some of which were personal accounts, and reports of others working in the area, or findings of authoritative bodies researching the topic. Each basket contained one or two videos, an audio-tape, a Law Reform Commission or Royal Commission Reports, journal articles and some contained legislation, cases, satirical cartoons, conference proceedings. All were selected with the aim of building a composite picture of how one group in our community has been disadvantaged.

The contents of the basket on Women's access issues were:

 

 

Students were not prevented from doing their own research into the topic. But this was not designed as a research task, as research is time consuming and also the students had already completed and been assessed on a research based assignment in this subject. They were advised that no additional marks would be given for research done.

 

Collaborative work

Group work was considered a useful vehicle for this task. Collaboration allow for exchange of ideas, for testing, debating, clarifying and confirming concepts and conclusions. Through this interchange student learning can be enhanced. Additionally, working collaboratively is a workplace requirement making it is essential that lawyers be able to work co-operatively and effectively with others. It was intended that whilst the students were working collaboratively on their group task they would be gaining insight into group interaction and decision making. As the intake into the postgraduate course comprised of some students doing four or five subjects together per semester, others were just doing this one. It was hoped that this would also bring about more student interaction in and outside of class time, and make the experience more socially enjoyable.

 

Development of skills other than writing

Lawyers have to be effective communicators and be able to present information to others in written and oral form. Most of the assessment in law is through written assignment or examination. The reason for this is twofold - adherence to tradition and limited staff resources. As this was a new course and the numbers were smaller, 39 compared to 336 in the undergraduate intake, these reasons weren't applicable.

This task also required organisational skills including efficient time management, planning, appropriate division of tasks within the group, interpersonal dynamics,...... Creativity in selecting the mode of presentation was also to be important as the means of conveying meaning can enhance the message itself.

Students could chose any format for their presentation - a lecturette, a role play, an interview, a quiz - whatever they felt would most effectively convey their interpretation and understanding of the relevant issues to other students. The presentation was ideally to be 10 minutes in length but was not to exceed 15 minutes.

 

Students reflective statement

Each student was asked to hand in a short reflective statement (200 to 500 words) about the task. The statement was to include:

 

• How the group went about the task (e.g. decision making on material used or rejected, selection of mode of presentation).
• What difficulties were encountered.
• How the group dealt with these difficulties.
• Their thoughts on the group task and the way they personally performed in the group situation - what they might do differently in future and what they had learned as a result of the experience.

 

 

Assessment

This component was 15% of the assessment in the subject. The oral group presentation was for 12 of that percentage, and would be given to each member in that group. Students were told that this meant each member of the group had to pull their weight, and work fairly and cooperatively with the others. If difficulties or inequities arose which the group felt unable to resolve, then they were to individually or collectively come to discuss such matters with me, prior to, but not after, the presentation and ways to resolve any impasse would be suggested.

 

Criteria for assessment of the group presentation:

There were two equal components:

 

1. . The substance, or content of the presentation
2. . The presentation itself.

 

Criteria for the Content:

 

• Effective use of the material given.
• Level of knowledge/understanding attained.
• Appropriateness of the theme selected for demonstrating knowledge/understanding.
• Structure .

 

Criteria for the Presentation:

 

• Fluency.
• Clarity.
• Cohesion.
• Creativity/originality.
• Engagement of the audience.

 

 

Criteria for assessment of the Individual Statement:

Three marks were allocated where there had been a sincere attempt made to reflect upon the group process as outlined above. It would be three marks or no marks.

 

My reflections on the Process:

Given the time frame, the presentations were of an very high standard, demonstrating awareness of the nature of disadvantage and also knowledge of its present manifestations in society. The difference from the undergraduates, based on their examination scripts was significant in several ways. First, there was greater variation and specialisation in responses, whereas examination responses essentially followed the model used in lectures. Second, there was on the whole greater synthesis of material, and analysis of the source material. Whilst it had been recommended to the undergraduate classes that they also access the same material to use in this same component of their course, it seemed that only minimal extra work had been undertaken. Third, the students demonstrated greater knowledge of specific issues and awareness of the complexity and divergence of views of the topic. From their being in control of the learning process, it seemed to generate greater confidence in their individual understanding of the topic.

The presentations were varied. One group allocated to access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders targeted the viability of legal pluralism. They drafted a bill entitled Law Plurality Act 1999, which accurately drew upon their knowledge of statutory interpretation, and then role played a debate on the Bill, a very heated debate, during its second reading in Parliament. Supporters of the bill were MPs of the Progressive Murri Party, with the opponents the Hansonite Conservative Party. Another group video-taped a mock court room trial, which was interspersed with commentary on the role of court interpreters and the difficulties encountered for non-English speaking migrants in a courtroom setting. 'How to be a Zillionaire' modeled on the television series of a similar name was format used by one group to present a pre-recorded question and answer quiz on issues of women's access to justice. Other groups used a variety of role plays, debates, and lecturettes with speakers explaining specific issues often with links to video extracts. One very effective presentation in this format dealt with children's access. The opening video had been compiled by the students to identify perceptions, concerns and attitudes pertaining to children and the law. This was followed by a case study on the theme 'A Vicious Cycle' which followed the life of one young girl and her interaction with the justice system at crucial points, as seen by her teacher, social worker, police officer and barrister.

 

Student Reflections:

The reflective statements written by the students were valuable in two ways. First to give me feedback as to the student's perceptions of the process and outcomes, and second, to facilitate student self evaluation of the group process, their role within it, and their own contributions. Also they were to reflect on what they had or, had not learned from the experience.

There were some common themes. One was that of conversion to group, as many of the students commenced by stating their former negative views on group work: 'Mention group assignment and you soon realize you need a 'quick ease' ready for rapid distribution to minimize groaning' but through the experience become devotees: 'But this experience working with people I didn't know until then was a truly rewarding experience'. One convert concluded that 'Perhaps there is hope for the group process to be an accepted part of tertiary assessment after all.' Several attributed this to maturity of the students in the course: ' I think my attitude to group work has now changed but that is a combination of maturity and working with post-grads versus undergrads. It was not the frustrating experience I was expecting it to be.'

Most students found it was 'enjoyable' and enabled them to 'get to know at least four other students very well'. Another recurring theme was that developing a workable structure for the group meetings was a useful exercise, most groups adopting a democratic, majority rules approach or seeking consensus or common ground between all. In one group arguments erupted: 'We argued . I found myself in intense opposition with another group member. I remember thinking to myself that I just couldn't stand this person's thoughts on (the topic). I listened but found myself repulsed.' This hurdle of group division was overcome by the group deciding to accommodate both opposing views in the form of a debate. They also realised their disagreement mirrored community division on the issue and directly contributed to the problem of access to justice.

The main negative about the group task related to the practicalities of successfully arranging times for meetings. Students were given only two hours out of class time so all had to organise other times to meet which was difficult for differing reasons for the part and full time students. Several students found that group efficiency increased as the deadline for the presentation grew closer. But the issue of time did cause two students to feel that it resulted in an unevenness in division of workload. Most students, however, perceived an equitable distribution in workload: 'I was pleasantly surprised by the effort of all members of this group, every one seemed intent to pull off not only a good presentation but also to create something unusual to highlight issues within our given topic'. Yet one student wrote that there were inconsistencies in (grade) goals amongst his group which meant that the more important tasks had to be taken on by himself, rather than entrust them to the 'weak link'. The other negatives were that some felt others in their group wasted time or 'were easy to get sidetracked into irrelevancies' which led to times of frustration. One commented on the technicalities of filming being more than he had realized.

Yet, the overall consensus from their statements was that through the group involvement, they were able to present the topic more effectively than each could have achieved alone; that it had been enjoyable, even if difficult timewise; and that a great deal had been learned and insights gained into the nature disadvantage within the justice system: 'I became aware of issues far removed from my own life. It reminded me that we are all not so fortunate'. And: 'Even though our debate was a play, the message was real. I felt our mock parliamentary debate clearly revealed this and the affirmative vote, passing the legislation would seem to support this. I hope our presentation brought home our message.'

 

Conclusion

There is always an element of risk when trailing a new teaching method in a subject, especially when it is also to be assessed. In addition, there is a great deal of time, effort and commitment involved in bringing about such a change. Keeping to one's tried and true lecture notes is definitely easier. Yet, when you sense that you are falling short of meeting your aims for student learning in what you consider an important part of the course, it must be time 'to test the water' and try another approach. This is what occurred this year in the Introduction to Law subject taught to the post -graduate students in the Master of Legal Science. My assessment is that it was a very successful method, and that the changes to be implemented in the future would be minor but would include additional set times for preparation, and additional learning basket to be complied on Australians with physical and also intellectual impairments. As a concept I think learning baskets provide a useful alternative to research based tasks, and could be employed in teaching and learning context wherever there is a diversity of sources, or opinions on an issue. And as for more group work, the next challenge is to introduce it to our undergraduate law students.

 

 

Teaching and Educational Development Institute,
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland 4072 Australia
    Phone: +61 (7) 3365 2788
Authorised by: ACE Group, Teaching and Educational Development Institute
Modified: 8 March 2002
© 2002 The University of Queensland