Hunter, Dan --- "Legal Teaching And Learning Over The Web" [2000] UTSLawRw 8; (2000) 2 University of Technology Sydney Law Review 124

• Distance Learning or Campus-Based Learning?
• Flexible Learning
• An Interaction Model
• Conclusion

Legal Teaching And Learning Over The Web

Dr Dan Hunter

Law School, University of Melbourne
[e-mail]

The Internet promises to change profoundly the way in which we teach law. This network of networks, and the standardisation of the TCP/IP protocol as the mechanism of communication, has meant a quantum leap in the accessibility of information within individual law schools, within any geographic region, and between organisations internationally. This is likely to provide the backbone of delivery of legal information in the future and, in so doing, will break the connection between the physical locale and the virtual presence of any law school. Teaching in law in the future must assume a distributed network, will be Web-based to a significant degree, and will inevitably involve some diminution of physical presence of students. Hence, students will not be required to be physically present at the law school for the extended periods which we currently expect. Though it is likely that some attendance will always be desirable, the amount will surely fall.

This will be first evident in postgraduate education, especially in the taught-course Master of Laws courses that many Australian and European universities offer. Students already take advantage of intensive courses, and will continue to do so. Additional flexible methods of delivery via computer will enable the law schools to expand their market in the near future. We are also seeing the introduction of these technologies into distance-learning institutions in the delivery of their undergraduate LLB degrees, and the same is likely to occur within campus-based institutions.

In the medium term, there is likely to be an even more significant change. Undergraduates will be freed from studying in the jurisdictions in which they wish to practise. At first this will just involve an extension of what already happens: Australian graduates practise in Australian states where they did not undertake their law degree, US graduates likewise. However, once the technology becomes commonplace and acceptable, there is little to stop major US universities from attracting the best undergraduate law students from around the world. The one major difficulty will be jurisdictionally based requirements. However, with increased movement of lawyers amongst jurisdictions, this is likely to become reduced over time.

IMPLICATIONS

The implications of the above have not been lost on many early adopting academics and institutions. Further, it is nowadays extremely easy to generate Web-based materials, using Web courseware like WebCT, Web-Course-In-A-Box and Blackboard Classroom/CourseInfo; the systems offered by online providers like Lexis-Nexis; or commercial HTML generators like Dreamweaver, FrontPage or HomeSite. We thus see individual professors producing legal materials in HTML. There are also many law schools which are rushing into production of Web-based teaching materials as an adjunct to traditional delivery of materials, as well as a few organisations moving towards complete delivery of course work through the Web. While a number of these approaches have real merit, the headlong rush into this type of teaching needs careful analysis and an understanding of how it will affect student learning, lecturer teaching, and law school infrastructure generally.

OUTLINE

This paper is intended to provide a point for discussion about the way in which we might use the Web and multimedia in law teaching. As such, it simply suggests an approach, and is not intended to be prescriptive about law teaching using these technologies.

The paper explains an interaction model of teaching and learning using Web-based multimedia. It also provides a number of examples of the model which the University of Melbourne Law School has developed to show how these technologies can be used in legal teaching and learning.

However, before outlining the model, I have to deal with whether these systems assume that the law school is involved in distance education. In the next section I suggest that one can use the same Web-based tools to engage in distance education or flexible learning. The choice of which approach to adopt is therefore with the institution.

Distance Learning or Campus-Based Learning?

The most basic question raised by the introduction of Web-based and other multimedia teaching tools is whether this means that the law school is, or should be, entering the distance-education market. For those institutions which are already distance-education providers, the use of this technology is what our American cousins would call a “no-brainer”. It is perfectly obvious that these systems can provide what distance-education providers have always promised: seamless delivery of material, teaching, communication and interaction. The issue for distance providers is, of course, to ensure equity of access, but this is a problem that is likely to diminish and is the subject of planning for each of these schools.

The question remains whether campus-based law schools should move directly to a distance-learning model. This is already being done by a couple of institutions: notably Chicago-Kent College of Law in the US has announced that its night-school students will move this year to distance provision over the Web. I suggest that non-distance-providing law schools should be wary about entering the distance-education market directly. The reasons for this are many, but a few will suffice.

First, distance learning is not just classroom-based learning delivered with e-mail and Web technologies. It requires particular skills and, importantly, significant infrastructure commitments within a distance-education institution. Distance-education providers require significant investment in graphic design and publication arenas, audio-visual design and production, technical assistance, marketing, and so forth. Few law schools have the infrastructure to provide distance education effectively, and to change directly to this mode will involve significant costs and a steep learning curve.

Second, there is still a perception that distance education is inferior to on-campus learning. The stigma of “correspondence courses” is still levelled at many distance-education providers. Little is to be gained by directly in a marketing sense positioning the law school as a distance provider. I suggest that is better to move to a flexible learning model, which adopts many of the benefits of distance learning while keeping the reputation of the school intact, and does not challenge the resources of the campus-based institution.

Third, teaching a distance course is not a cheap option. To do it well costs significant sums, requiring telecommunications access, creation of materials, and maintenance of the relationship between students and staff. Staff tend to spend more time interacting with students than in face-to-face teaching. Unless there is pressure on physical teaching spaces within the law school, moving to a distance model is not going to save any money in the long term.

In light of the rapid technological changes outlined above, law schools may eventually move to a significant distance-education mode. In the short term, I believe that campus-based providers gain little by moving completely into distance-education provision. It would be better, I believe, to introduce a flexible learning approach.

Flexible Learning

The idea behind what I’ve labelled “flexible learning” is the straightforward notion that we can marry the best elements of distance education within the existing frameworks of classroom-based learning. Thus, we provide the same degree of Web-based information to on-campus students as we would to distance students. Using currently available Web courseware products, it is possible to provide course materials, announcements for class, assignment requirements, quizzes and the like over the Web. This means that, for example, it is unnecessary to provide physical notices that teachers are absent, since students will be notified by Web. Further, students can be provided with Intranet casebooks, allowing for fast updating, monitoring of reading, and the like.^[1] It also allows for flexible contact of professors/lecturers, flexibility in class contact, and freedom for students to direct their learning outside of class contact times. Student administration is facilitated, and better communication channels can be created for special needs. However, the benefits of face-to-face lecturer-student contact is maintained.

This flexible learning approach may be implemented on an ad hoc basis in existing courses. However, it would be better to pick specific programmes where this approach could be introduced in a structured way. The obvious candidate for this is the intensive LLM subjects; but this will depend on the individual law school.

In time, I believe that this approach will filter into most teaching in law schools. But its introduction will be gradual, with the problems ironed out in situations where the reputation and success of the school are not at stake.

The question remains how to structure the introduction of these systems.

An Interaction Model

In this section I outline a model of how to structure the introduction of Web-based multimedia across the law curriculum. I term it an “interaction model”, since it is fundamentally a model of how to use computers to assist students to interact with teachers and each other in order to direct their own learning. It comprises two basic features: a Web-based system to assist students to learn and build legal concepts, and a system to assist students to contextualise their learning of these concepts. These systems conform roughly to the notion in traditional teaching, of providing lectures to build legal concepts, and tutorials to situate the learning.

While the two systems discussed below form the backbone of my model, many other elements can be built around them. I discuss some of these additional elements after the discussion of each system.

CONCEPTUAL LEARNING: THE ONE-COURSEBOOK SYSTEMS

One of the fundamental tasks in class-based instruction is to impart the basic conceptual framework of legal principles, rules and methods. To impart these frameworks, most legal teaching relies in part on casebooks or, at least, a set of textual materials which we expect students to read, digest and understand. Some teaching approaches emphasise the need for students to read materials prior to class, while others are neutral on this issue. Nonetheless, whatever the pedagogical approach, we expect students to read materials in order to build, for themselves, the legal conceptual frameworks.

We can build systems to support this aspect of student learning. My suggestion is an electronic form of the legal casebook, which integrates it with related course administration, run over the law school’s Intranet. It is called the Intranet coursebook (hereafter the “I-coursebook”). The I-coursebook integrates basic course administration (enrolment, registration, communication with instructor, etcetera) with legal materials, as an electronic text with hypertext links to associated course material. At its simplest it is an electronic text, presented via the Web with the usual hypertext links, graphics, audio, video, and other material which is now commonplace in Web pages. Students read the text and materials in the usual way of all electronic texts. However, the I-coursebook is very different to a typical electronic text:

• First, it is served out as a database application, with HTML text generated on the fly. This means that the text is not fixed. Thus, students can have their own, unique text, which is filtered and adapted for their needs. Further, one I-coursebook can be filtered for use in related courses. From one main set of materials, the I-coursebook can be uniquely customised by the instructor for any particular student, subject or special need.
• Secondly, and related to this, students can make notes in their own I-coursebook. Thus, the student can make appropriate notations in her I-coursebook before, during or after class. The I-coursebook is therefore like its hard-copy analogue, but very different from the usual electronic HTML text, which is static, monolithic and only centrally modifiable.
• Thirdly, in the I-coursebook each case, statute or document has a series of questions associated with it. Hard-copy casebooks also have questions, so the basic form is familiar to students. However, the I-coursebook extends this idea by applying computer-based question-and-answer technology to coursebook questions. So, outside class, students can read each document and answer the questions from it. Correct answers are noted and incorrect answers are immediately corrected. Learning is improved over typical casebooks, because mistakes are immediately remedied, and indeed, additional questions can be asked till the student gets it right. The questions on the materials are not intended as student assessment, but rather to direct students to the important features of the documents, to aid understanding, and to see if they are understanding the principles inherent in the documents. The I-coursebook system will allow effective self-directed learning for the first time in legal courses, and will be particularly useful in large classes.
• Fourthly, the I-coursebook will, for the first time, allow the instructor to keep track of the reading and understanding of students. The instructor will, through electronic reporting by the centralised I-coursebook server have access to statistics on whether students have read the materials. The instructor will also be able to see the areas where the students are struggling with some materials or concepts, by accessing the statistics on student answers to questions associated with those materials. Where many students have problems with the questions, more class time can be allocated.
• Fifthly, threaded newsgroups, e-mail discussion lists and other synchronous or asynchronous communication methods can be incorporated into the I-coursebook. These methods can be tagged to individual topics, sections or documents. The I-coursebook thus has a topic-based record of all classwork.
• Finally, all course administration can be undertaken within this model. Thus, announcements, class lists, and the like can be administered from within this model.

In short, the I-coursebook will extend the casebooks from legal teaching, and will allow for self-directed learning of legal concepts.

I have been experimenting with building some prototypes of the I-coursebook using commonly available courseware systems. Though these systems do not contain all the functionality of the I-coursebook described above, they point the way to its development. In the presentation of this paper, I shall demonstrate the system I’ve built for teaching equity and trusts law using a package called WebCT. The course can be found at:

http://128.250.165.244:90/webct/public/show_courses.pl

Guests should logon as either guest1 or guest2, and the password is conscience.

SUPPLEMENTING CONCEPTUAL LEARNING

In face-to-face teaching, we currently supplement conceptual learning through lectures and seminars, whether these are run in an expository or Socratic manner. In moving towards a flexible learning approach delivered via the Web, we can supplement conceptual learning through a number of means. These include video classes delivered via streaming technology, Internet telephony, PowerPoint overheads, and so forth. These can be explored in time. However, I believe that the fundamental mechanism of student learning should revolve around technologies like the I-coursebook.

SITUATED LEARNING: TUTORIAL AND SIMULATION SYSTEMS

Though it is important to provide conceptual frameworks for students, it is equally important for students to learn by doing. The theory here is that students learn better when their knowledge is contextualised and motivated by a situated need. I therefore suggest a series of Web-based, multimedia simulation systems which can be used to contextualise student learning.

These simulation systems are intended to simulate working environments, immersing law students in the milieu in which they will have to make decisions in the real world. Students will be presented with a scenario, and led through the steps necessary to solve that problem, learning and reinforcing their understanding by doing practical exercises. Exercises will involve a scenario in which the student is presented with a lifelike file which contains background information and instructions. The background information may involve a voice-mail message from a superior, a scanned image of a contract, corporate material, and so forth. The instructions may involve a memo, a letter or fax from a manager. Students will then undertake questions which require them to interact with background materials, answer questions that relate to the materials and generally fulfil the requirements of their instructions. They may have simple question-and-answer interactions, or they may be required to identify appropriate sections of a contract, or they may have to undertake short answer essays, and so on. Students may take undertake exercises individually or in collaboration with other students, since the simulation systems will allow for interactions using multiple methods.

Each exercise in the simulation system is packaged as a file of material. The file contains background information about their task and a set of instructions for the task that they are required to undertake with the file. The file’s background information will include all documents, material and messages which disclose the legal issue. These may take the form of a contract, incorporation documents, receipts, invoices, etcetera. The file’s instruction will usually involve a request by another person (typically a partner or supervisor) to undertake a particular task. The form of the instruction may be a memo, e-mail message, voice-mail message or fax, etcetera.

Students must fulfil the requirements of the instructions. We do not, however, expect them to do so without additional guidance. Hence, we will direct the students to break up the problem into manageable sections, by a series of questions, interactions and problems. By completing these interactions, they will fulfil the instructions for the file. Once they have completed the instructions, they will be rewarded with an acknowledgment (for example, letter, video or voice) and an explanation of the legal principles that they have learnt during the completion of this file. Some of these interactions may become the basis for formal assessment. Further, some exercises will involve the creation of essay-type material, which can be assessed as an assignment in the usual way. The eventual weighting of assessment will depend on the number and character of the exercises which we are eventually able to develop. However, some component of formal assessment will involve completion of exercises.

These systems are intended to operate in conjunction with normal classes. The teaching approach is to introduce basic ideas and principles in the class groups, so that students have an understanding of the fundamental structure and approach to the subject. This will rely on the I-coursebook, as outlined above.

Melbourne University Law School has already developed or is developing simulation systems along these lines. These include the DRaLE system (used in Dispute Resolution and Legal Ethics), ITL (used in International Trade Law) the Lemonade Stand system (for Introduction to Business Law) and the Legal Research Workbook (for legal research skills generally). These simulation systems assist in contextualising the fundamental concepts taught using the I-coursebook and other methods.

In the presentation of this paper, I shall demonstrate the system we’ve built for simulations within the subject Dispute Resolution and Legal Ethics. The system can be found at:

http://128.250.165.244/

Guests should logon as one of two people:

Logon: tom
Password: denning

or:

Logon: julio
Password: iglesias

TEACHING STYLES

The question remains whether these systems presume or dictate a style of classroom teaching. I do not believe that they do. Whether the teacher wants to teach students using Socratic methods, problem-based or example-based learning, expository lectures, or any other approach, these tools can support the learning of students. These tools are designed as support systems for student learning, and can be used in any of these approaches. They are primarily designed to let students direct their own learning, and can be altered to fit most styles of teaching. However, discussion will need to take place with individual teachers, and the approaches altered to fit.

Conclusion

This is a moment of great opportunity for law school pedagogy. But the opportunity can be wasted or can lead to inappropriate, ad hoc implementations. This document and the ideas supporting it are merely one approach to how this opportunity might be used.

---

[1] See the section entitled “Conceptual Learning: The One-Coursebook Systems”, below.