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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Boud, D. (2006). Foreword. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. xvii–xxix). London: Routledge.
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.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Aligning assessment with long term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.
Bradney, A. (2003). Conversations, choices and chances: The liberal law school in the twenty-first century. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment. London: Routledge.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, E. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education, 39(7), 3–7.
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.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Gibbs, G. (1981). Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing, SCED Occasional paper No. 8, Birmingham. London: Financial Conduct Authority.
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.
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (Eds.). (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Hess, G. (2002). Heads and hearts: The teaching and learning environment in law school. Journal of Legal Education, 52(1–2), 75–111.
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.
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.
Race, P. (2006). The lecturer’s toolkit (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen: A guide for post-compulsory education (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Snyder, B. R. (1970). The hidden curriculum. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
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.
Sullivan, W., Colby, A., Wegner, J., Bond, L., & Shulman, L. (2007). Educating lawyers: Preparation for the profession of law. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)