The notre dame sydney law society

Annual Education ReportAugust 2013

1

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.

2

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”.

3

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

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:

4

- “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 lecture-

tutorial 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, self-

directed 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.)

5

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

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.”

6

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”.

7

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.

8

Combine

or remove (%)

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

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

Legal Research and Writing

61 100 61

Legal Process 72 100 72 Legal History 48 100 48 Criminal Law B 37 89 42 Principles of Contract Law B

29 71 41

Principles of Torts B

37 71 52

Contemporary legal Issues

71 71 100

Principles of Equity

34 71 48

Property Law B 24 47 51 The Law of Trusts 34 47 72 Advocacy 16 47 34 Administrative Law B

40 29 100

Evidence B 35 29 100 Constitutional Law B

29 29 100

Commercial Practice and Ethics

16 29 55

Civil Procedure B 37 29 100 Remedies 14 29 48 International and Comparative Law

19 29 66

Legal Philosophy 27 8 100 Alternative Dispute Resolution

18 8 100

* 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

9

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

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.

10

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.

11

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

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.

12

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.