Skip to main content

Making Assessment for Learning Happen Through Assessment Task Design in the Law Curriculum

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Scaling up Assessment for Learning in Higher Education

Part of the book series: The Enabling Power of Assessment ((EPAS,volume 5))

Abstract

Across the disciplines in higher education, too little attention is paid by those who design and deliver courses to the role of assessment as a driver of learning. This is certainly the case in legal education. A lecture-based, teacher-centred approach predominates, which produces a largely passive learning, an approach that is reflected in the assessment. The emphasis is on doctrinal instruction, issue coverage, accreditation and ranking. Thus, there is plenty of scope for scaling up. In this chapter, the author describes the principal method of learning and assessment in law schools and the modest learning outcomes it can produce. The author proposes some simple strategic moves in assessment design that can expand the range of achievable learning outcomes in legal education and facilitate the development of skills necessary for professional life. These moves involve the adoption of authentic materials for use in learning and assessment and the introduction of task-based assessments in which students take the lead role in the construction and management of their learning artefacts. They are simple and economical, can be applied in large classes and have the potential for adaptation across the disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2006). Foreword. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. xvii–xxix). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2009). How can practise reshape assessment? In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 29–43). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Aligning assessment with long term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradney, A. (2003). Conversations, choices and chances: The liberal law school in the twenty-first century. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, E. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education, 39(7), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, K. (2005). Playing safe: Learning and teaching in undergraduate law. UK Centre for Legal Education. Retrieved from http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/projects/past-projects/ncle/

  • Elton, L., & Johnston, B. (2002). Assessment in universities: A critical review of research. York, UK: Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1981). Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing, SCED Occasional paper No. 8, Birmingham. London: Financial Conduct Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glofcheski, R. (2010a). Tort law assessment survey Retrieved from http://www.assessmentproject.com.hk/resources.html

  • Glofcheski, R. (2010b). Students’ tort test experience. Retrieved from http://www.assessmentproject.com.hk/resources.html

  • Glofcheski, R. (2011). RMD survey. Retrieved from http://www.assessmentproject.com.hk/resources.html

  • Glofcheski, R. (2015). Rethinking teaching, learning and assessment in the twenty-first century law curriculum. In C. Gane & R. H. Huang (Eds.), Legal education in the global context. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (Eds.). (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, G. (2002). Heads and hearts: The teaching and learning environment in law school. Journal of Legal Education, 52(1–2), 75–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, R., & Vignaendra, S. (2003). Learning outcomes and curriculum development in law (chapter 13). Report of Australian Universities Teaching Committee. Retrieved from http://www.cald.asn.au/docs/AUTC_2003_Johnstone-Vignaendra.pdf

  • LeBrun, M., & Johnstone, R. (1994). The quiet revolution: Improving student learning in law. Sydney, NSW: The Law Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legal Education and Training Review (LETR). (2013). Legal education and training review. Retrieved from http://letr.org.uk/

  • Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century. ELI Paper 1. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf

  • Motley, J. (1985–1986). A foolish consistency: The law school exam. 10. Nova Law Journal, 723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Race, P. (2006). The lecturer’s toolkit (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen: A guide for post-compulsory education (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, S. (2011). Tired of talking: A call for clear strategies for legal education reform: Moving beyond the discussion of good ideas to the real transformation of law schools. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 10(1), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochette, A. (2011). Teaching and learning in Canadian legal education: An empirical exploration. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University Canada. Retrieved from http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=103488&local_base=GEN01-MCG02

  • Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2013). Assessment for learning in higher education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In G. W. Brent (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. (2001). Teaching law by design: How learning theory and instructional design can inform and reform law teaching. San Diego Law Review, 28, 347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, B. R. (1970). The hidden curriculum. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckey, R., et al. (2007). Best practices for legal education: A vision and a road map. Clinical Legal Education Association. US: University Publications, University of South Carolina. Executive summary retrieved from http://www.cleaweb.org/Resources/Documents/best_practices-cover.pdf

  • Sturm, S., & Guinier, L. (2007). The law school matrix: Reforming legal education in a culture of competition and conformity. Vanderbilt Law Review, 60(2), 515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, W., Colby, A., Wegner, J., Bond, L., & Shulman, L. (2007). Educating lawyers: Preparation for the profession of law. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, B., Lee, A., & Glofcheski, R. (2006). How law students learn. Retrieved from http://www.assessmentproject.com.hk/resources.html

  • Watson, A. (2001). Legal education reform: Modest suggestions. Journal of Legal Education, 51(1), 91–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waye, V., & Faulkner, M. (2012). Embedding e-portfolios in a law program: Lessons from an Australian law school. Journal of Legal Education, 61(4), 560–584.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rick Glofcheski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Glofcheski, R. (2017). Making Assessment for Learning Happen Through Assessment Task Design in the Law Curriculum. In: Carless, D., Bridges, S., Chan, C., Glofcheski, R. (eds) Scaling up Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. The Enabling Power of Assessment, vol 5. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3045-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3045-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3043-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3045-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics