Law actors know more than they think, then think more so they know
Associate Professor Bob Moles
Faculty of Law
". . . the principles of contract law are not so different from ordinary people's expectations, so students thinking clearly about possible legal responses before they had knowledge of the law had a fair chance of coming up with a suitable answer - drama was ideal for this."
Background | Aims | Process | Evaluation | Contact
Background
I have thought for some time that the conventional lecturing system encouraged students to rote learn something they had probably not experienced and to discuss it in a language which was not their own. In my first year Contract and Legal Skills subject I wanted to turn the situation around, to enable the students to use their own language and their own experiences and in doing so to suggest that:
- the principles of contract law are not so different from ordinary people's expectations, therefore if they could think clearly about what might be appropriate legal responses, they had a fair chance of coming up with a suitable answer;
- on the other hand, if the answers provided by contract law are very different from what we might expect, then this has to be noted and explained.
It followed that if they were therefore to think about what might be an appropriate legal response before they had studied "the law", they would have some benchmark from which to test their intuitive understanding. If that accorded with "the law" then it would have a reinforcing effect - if it differed, then they would be more likely to remember those differences and to think about the reasons for them. So we needed a situation which would get this thinking process under way. What I came up with was drama.
Aims
With this approach I aimed to: -
- emphasise the fact that learning is an active engagement. The student's ability to think and reason is of primary importance
- make the learning environment stimulating, memorable and collaborative
Process
The script: The first step was to write an appropriate script. I chose a house moving scenario as most people would have had some experience of this and it would not introduce any unnecessary complexity. Of course, to make it a legal issue there had to be a dilemma or conflict. (Example of the script I used.) (Link not active 30/1/03.)
The characters: Now that I had some of the basic features in place, I needed to flesh the situation out with some "characters" with the usual array of virtues and vices - so that the students could appreciate that we are dealing with a social and not just a legal situation. People do not walk into solicitors offices ready labelled as "contracts" or "torts" problems. I also wanted to bring to the attention of the students the difficulties arising from communications problems (including sexist attitudes) and how they may be employed in situations of difficulty.
The mechanics: In the first lecture I explain the concept and ask for student volunteers. These volunteers have a week to prepare the script and then present to a class of 100 students. After they present the first part of the situation I ask the rest of the students if they thought that any legally enforceable agreement had been established, which elicits differing points of view. The lecture group is then asked to divide into smaller groups representing the "yes" and "no" opinions, and to write up their reasons in support of their views. At this stage they can consult with the "characters" who are still "in character" and will argue from that point of view. We then ask the representatives from each group to meet and formulate the basic views on either side. The views of each group are then written up as graphic displays, and made available to the students through the student file server. I then follow this pattern through two more iterations in following lectures until we have covered all the relevant options.
Evaluation
Many of the students did become involved and in their small groups were found earnestly debating the rights and wrongs of the various participants in the drama. They developed a depth of understanding that students had not achieved in previous years using traditional teaching methods, although their exam marks were no better (and no worse). I take this as an indication of the bluntness of the exam instrument rather than a criticism of the subject methods.
Without doubt the students' capacity to confidently undertake new legal learning experiences improved markedly, as evidenced in placements the students undertook at the end of the year. I surmise this is because the thrust of the subject was to instil in students the confidence that they have the basis of legal reasoning already, and that this understanding is a good place to start from. In contrast the traditional method implies that the students know nothing until they get it from a book.
The strongest negative response was the feeling that whilst this was all good fun, the other lecture group had been getting underway with their lectures, and the students in my group were worried that they were not "doing contract law". It was difficult for them to believe that their own reflections could have value, and they were concerned about being left behind. This problem was obviated in later implementations because all the groups used the drama method.
This page is a summary of a more detailed description appearing on Uniserve Law.
Contact
Dr Bob Moles
Office: +61 8 270 6524
Mobile:0411 765585
Email: bobmoles@camtech.net.au
last updated 16/12/99
