Readers might find this ‘Public Interest Law Careers Guide‘ useful. “The guide is designed to be useful for tertiary students, graduates, practising lawyers and secondary school careers counsellors.” The “Creating your own pathway” section includes references to practical legal training, volunteering and internships.
The Law Institute of Victoria’s ‘Future Focus’ committee, has conducted research under the heading of ‘The Law Graduates of the Future’. This has involved a survey of law graduates and employers during 2011 and 2012. Being unable to attend the inaugural forum in Melbourne, I am looking forward to seeing the material that was presented there and hearing/reading reactions to the presentation and discussion. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you did attend and would like to comment. I noticed that the LIV’s President Blog, mentioned some interesting issues, including an ‘expectation gap’
between what universities and practical legal training providers are producing and what law firms believe they need from graduate employees
and that graduates tended to rate their skills more highly than their employees.
I have not seen the survey questions or a summary of the responses. I think it is important to look closely at those before commenting on the above finding.
I also notice that the LIV President’s Blog states:
I hope that this will be an opportunity for all of those involved or that have an interest in the legal profession to work together to ensure we are creating “work ready” lawyers that are well placed to address the challenges that lie ahead for the legal profession.
I am interested to learn more about what “work ready” means in the context of the Future Focus committee’s work. I observe that the national practical legal training competency standards for entry-level lawyers (NCS) uses different language, and a comparison of the language used during the 2006 Legal Education Review (the Campbell Report), the NCS, and that used by the Future Focus committee might be interesting.
This post is an edited version of a comment that I posted to the Practical Legal Training Educators Australia discussion group.
I recently finished re-reading Julian Webb’s chapter, ‘The Body in (E)motion: Thinking through Embodiment in Legal Education’ in Paul Maharg and Caroline Maughan (eds), Affect and Legal Education – Emotion in Learning and Teaching the Law, Emerging Legal Learning (Ashgate, 2011) 211.
I think Julian Webb makes a compelling argument (at p 227) that, ‘By enabling our students to get social in the classroom, to come together in a more structured and reflective way, group learning can actively support their social and moral development, and – maybe, just maybe – enhance their ability to become ‘better’ social actors…’
This chapter follows nicely from Graham Ferris and Rebecca Huxley-Binns’ chapter, ‘What Students Care About and Why We Should Care’ in the same book. They rightly argue at p 195, ‘…that those delivering education should explicitly and deliberately consider the purposes of learners, meaning the things they do or might value, or care about, or strive for. Whilst the choice of purpose is that of the learner, we can use our experience and knowledge of teaching law in higher education to facilitate purpose, choice or value adoption or rejection.’
It seems to me that these positions are applicable to the practical legal training environment, not just the academy. That said, some might be understandably concerned about leaning too far toward what students care about and losing sight of the integrity of the training and theaccreditation. This is the ‘springboard’ for my following comments.
Taking the skills workshop situation as an example, we can design the instruction and plan certain learning objectives for this experiential learning experience.
There may be ‘global’ objectives embodied by ‘global’ statements in the Competency Standards for Entry-Level Lawyers; ‘instructional’ objectives the students’ performance goals, the conditions for that performance, and the the criterion for satisfactory performance. We can frame specific educational objectives as a subject-verb-object sentence: ‘[During the role-play interview] the student will be able to obtain all instructions necessary [to commence work on the client’s problem and to provide preliminary advice in plain language]’. We could specify what ‘plain language’ means in this context (e.g. we could decide to exclude ‘txt-speech’, and explain why – notions of professionalism, regularity, respect, integrity, etc.) Here, I’ve drawn on Mager, R.F., Preparing Instructional Objectives. 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, USA: CEP Press.
It is also possible to explicitly plan the learning across different levels of processing (e.g. retrieval, comprehension, analysis, knowledge utilisation, meta-cognition, and the self-system/affective level) across different domains of learning (information, mental procedures, psychomotor procedures). Here, I’ve drawn on Marzano, R.J. and J.S. Kendall, eds. The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 2nd ed. 2007, Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, California. I have previously blogged about this taxonomy.
Taking the above into account when planning the workshop, we can decide to adopt certain evidence-based teaching methods, such as advanced organisers, graphic organisers, whole-class interactive or co-operative learning approaches, and use a range of media to do this. I am drawing on Petty, Geoff, Evidence-based Teaching – A Practical Approach (Nelson Thornes, 2nd ed, 2009) here. Of course, it is important that the material and methods we use are ‘authentic’ and relevant to the learning objectives.
When we actually ‘perform’ or ‘deliver’ the workshop, ‘stuff’ comes up during discussions or arising out of the practice role-play interviews. It may be the student asks a question about how to handle a certain situation, or a student recalls an analogous situation from their volunteer legal work or graduate placement. We might respond by opening the question up to discussion, or share an illustrative ‘war story’ anecdote from our own practice to give an example of how we solved a problem. These are usually good opportunities to employ, and model, ‘reflection-in-action’, and ‘reflection-on-action’ approaches to teaching, learning and professional practice. I am thinking about the work of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön, but in particular Schön’s book., Educating the reflective practitioner, Jossey-Bass higher education series. (Jossey-Bass, 1st pbk. print. ed, 1990). Peter Senge is also good to read about this – Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline – The Art & Practice of the Learning Organisation (Doubleday Business, 2nd ed, 2006).
These interactions have social as well as educational qualities; both of which involve the students emotionally to some extent.
Running through all of this, from planning to delivery, are considerations concerning the affective domain / self-system level of processing learning. What students want and feel is relevant to emotionally driven judgements about whether the learning task is important and relevant to their learning goals and their ability to complete the learning task: motivation to learn = value x expectancy. This can be especially important with adult learners who can resist what they perceive as ‘supplementary’ learning (Atherton, James, ‘Resistance to Learning: A Discussion Based on Participants in In-Service Professional Training Programme’ (1999) 51(1) Journal of Vocational Education and Training: The Vocational Aspect of Education 77).
Some tend to focus on these aspects in relation to initial engagement, but I think they’re equally important to student satisfaction with the learning and could possibly affect their feelings about continuing professional education. In other words, what we do during the interactions is relevant to the immediate educational objective, but also could affect young lawyers’ commitment to life-long learning, and either impinge or enhance their satisfaction with their professional development, and their chosen profession. I think these factors are also relevant in training entry-level lawyers to pursue thinking about ethics and professional responsibility.
So, I agree that it is important to be clear about what are our teaching and learning goals in facilitating our students construction of themselves as lawyers; I think it is important that we are able to justify our instructional decision-making; it seems to me that both of those propositions involve developing our understanding of the affective domain of learning in practical legal training so we can continually improve the way we train lawyers.
Karen Barton and Fiona Westwood’s chapter, ‘Developing Professional Character – Trust, Values and Learning’ in Paul Maharg and Caroline Maughan (eds), Affect and Legal Education – Emotion in Learning and Teaching the Law, Emerging Legal Learning (Ashgate, 2011) 235, is a very good read.
The chapter has helpful introductory parts about the ‘repositioning of professionalism and the role of legal education’ (p 237), and ‘mastering the craft of lawyering’ using the ‘head, hand and heart’ metaphor (p 238). The authors identify 4 categories of student ‘firms’ that emerge in the transactional legal education environment, in a learning/trust matrix, where each firm has a mix ‘high’ or ‘low’ levels of trust and learning (p 242). The objective, of course, is to develop high trust/high learning student firms (p 244). The authors describe some of the strategies taken as part of an early intervention approach to identify student firms that seem to be tending toward low trust and/or low learning types. These include training of practice management tutors, and techniques to encourage reflective practices amongst the students including reflection on own individual and group work styles and common values (pp 244-8).
Selfishly perhaps, I wanted to know a bit more detail about actual student-student interactions and tutor-student interactions given the importance of ‘forming a team’ (p 246) and that ‘shared values were an integral part’ of the activity (p 247). At p 247, the authors note that ‘…our students did not choose their fellow team members … it was important that they learned to feel secure with each other … this feeling of security was facilitated by their initial discussions.’ It would be good to see more information in the article about those initial discussions, the medium through which they were conducted, and the strategies and methods used to facilitate them, given the importance of those discussions to setting up the activity, as reflected in the student quotes, particularly one on p 251, ‘My concern for the success of the firm began from its inception…’.
As reported in my earlier blog post…
It is my understanding that most Australian medical practitioners would refer to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) to categorise and assist in the identification of mental disorders.
By way of update – A revised edition of the manual (DSM-5) is due to be published in 2013. Apparently each revision of the DSM attracts some controversy. The lead up to the release of DSM-5 is no exception. Some commentators in the mental health field are concerned about the broadening of criteria for identification of certain mental health disorders; see this article in The Age, for example. It will be interesting to see what impact, if any, this issue has for the development of mental health policy in within the jurisdiction of disclosures for admission to the profession and grant/renewal of practising certificates.
You can read my original blog post here.
I have written a new post: Mental Health Disclosures: Admission and Renewal of Practising Certificates.
I have set up a new group on LinkedIn: Practical Legal Training Australia.
I hope that this will be a useful place for discussions about research and practice for educators involved in Practical Legal Training.
Thinking about your teaching in 2012? Consider reflecting on your approach to providing feedback to your students from an evidence-based perspective.