Ailwood, S et al --- "Connecting research and teaching: a case study from the School Of Law, University of Canberra" [2013] LegEdDig 39; (2013) 21(3) Legal Education Digest 25

• Connecting research and teaching: a case study from the School Of Law, University of Canberra

---

Connecting research and teaching: a case study from the School Of Law, University of Canberra

S Ailwood, P Easteal, M Sainsbury and L Bartels

Legal Education Review, Vol 22, No.2, 2012, pp 317-338

The need to produce law graduates with the capacity and competency to engage in complex practice has been widely noted in commentary on legal education.

A strong ability to research is crucial to develop the necessary higher order skills. One approach to developing research skills is through research-led education (RLE). The student benefits of RLE are well documented and include: (1) deepening understanding of the knowledge bases of disciplines and professions, including their research methods and contemporary research challenges and issues; (2) building higher-order intellectual capabilities and enhancing their skills for employment and lifelong learning; (3) developing the capacity to conduct research and enquiry; and (4) enhancing engagement and developing capacity for independent learning.

However, RLE is not only of benefit to students. For the law academic, research in education is also a multi-faceted concept. It includes practices such as pedagogical research, reflection on one’s own teaching practices, and discipline-based research which informs teaching.

Within many Australian universities, it is likely that there is a subcultural change taking place, which recognises the nexus between research (broadly defined) and learning and offers inducements to integrate the two. This cultural change is likely to be more significant for newer universities, like University of Canberra (UC), which have not traditionally had sufficient access to research funding. Such an initiative requires institutional commitment to teacher-researchers who cultivate a climate of inquiry for students at all stages of their journey.

Like all universities, UC’s internal research strategy is heavily influenced by external funding and assessment drivers in the form of grant income and research quality evaluation. The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative assessed and evaluated research quality in Australian universities, with the result being a score card produced in a national report. With the prospect of ERA scores driving funding to universities, internal research strategies are focused on raising these scores. There is a move to focusing research effort into selected areas – those that can achieve higher scores in future ERA assessments.

The emphasis on ERA rankings thus impacts legal research and the teaching–research relationship directly. First, it limits recognition of research to those outputs that are recognised in the ERA, excluding other outputs that may be beneficial to teaching. For example, textbooks, casebooks and commentaries are generally excluded from the definition of research, but are a valuable teaching resource. The performance expectation of applying for grant income also impacts on the type of research undertaken. This may result in a focus on applied research that is relevant to industry, rather than doctrinal, theoretical or critical research, whereas a balanced law curriculum should incorporate a range of approaches to knowledge.

These factors have the potential to weaken the teaching–research alignment, particularly where staff are pressured into producing ERA-recognised research outputs at the expense of research contributions and activities reflecting a broader conception of scholarship.

There is some encouragement for staff producing pedagogic research; however, academics are still expected to be producing discipline-based research which is valuable for ERA reporting. And, while UC has incentive schemes to promote and recognise quality teaching, designed to increase the number of applicants for teaching awards at a national level, the scholarship of teaching is one small aspect of these. It was in this context that the UC School of Law was required to implement an RLE signature theme.

In 2011, UC had to settle on a meaning for RLE and consider practical measures to implement its RLE signature theme. Different terms are used in the literature to describe different aspects of the nexus between teaching and research. According to Colbeck, where a broad and inclusive definition of research is adopted, it is easier to integrate it into teaching. A broad definition also supports a range of approaches to developing the teaching-research connection, which can be more sensitive to disciplinary differences and diverse student bodies. A discipline-based approach is important in studying the research–teaching nexus because the nature of knowledge construction and research methods differ between disciplines.

With this principle in mind, a central committee at UC articulated a model conceptualising the interaction of research with teaching. That model was predicated upon a view of best practice teaching as student-driven instead of simply pedagogical – that is, the theory that learning is best achieved with students not acting as passive recipients of knowledge imparted through traditional lectures, but driving their own learning. This has been labelled ‘learner-centredness’. The model reflected a broad interpretation of RLE practices and of research. The latter was defined as advancing knowledge or ways of making knowledge, in agreement with Brew’s view that research is a ‘complex phenomenon’ and that there is no one thing, nor even one set of things, which defines ‘research’.

An understanding of effective teaching practices and continuous reflection on and evaluation of one’s own practices is vital for effective teaching. Accordingly, UC has a strong focus on evaluating teaching, which is recognised as a crucial stage in conducting action research aimed at understanding which teaching approaches are most conducive to students achieving learning outcomes. Researcher–teachers, in coordinating and monitoring learning activities, can engage in observation and chronicle their ‘impressions’ about the efficacy of the various aspects of learning cycles. In this regard, student engagement with, and performance in, assessment tasks are also fertile sources of feedback to reflective teachers on the effectiveness of their approaches and practices. Such evidence can be gathered through standardised formal university evaluation instruments, by more informal electronic and face-to-face discourse, and through peer observation.

UC has established the Unit Satisfaction Survey (USS), which is conducted for every unit (subject). Students are asked to comment on a range of aspects of the delivery of the unit that reflect on teaching and overall satisfaction with the unit. Results are distributed to the academic, as well as Faculty Deans and Associate Deans (Education). Students also complete questionnaires after graduation to assess their course level experience (UC Course Experience Questionnaire). These surveys, together with other evaluation methods, form a part of the University’s Courses and Teaching Evaluation and Improvement Process.

Although the UC USS does not directly address the integration of research training and research projects, it is likely to impact on other questions, including whether students ‘found this unit intellectually stimulating’ or it ‘helped [them] to develop skills and knowledge’. It will also impact on responses to the following questions with respect to generic skills: ‘The unit sharpened my analytic skills’, ‘The unit developed my problem-solving skills’, ‘The unit improved my skills in written communication’ and ‘As a result of the unit I feel confident about tackling unfamiliar problems’.

Analysis of Australian awards for university teaching award winners over the period 2001– 2005 reveals that although not all winners were active researchers, most were. As Lee has noted, ‘Courses taught by those at the cutting edge of research will necessarily be of higher quality than those taught by those merely using the research results of others – whatever the apparent quality of their style of delivery’. Thus, it is important that the topics, information and reading materials are contemporary and reflect the current ‘state of play’. This requires a commitment to ongoing study in the areas in which one is teaching. UC has steps in place to encourage a research-informed curriculum and academics are expected to be research active. Annual performance expectations for all academic staff include a doctoral degree or progress towards one, and a minimum number of publications and grant applications.

Research outputs attract funding, which can be directed towards teaching. They also raise a university’s esteem, which will be attractive to students, particularly those at postgraduate level.

Research exploring the way people learn has found that learning is correlated positively with students’ ability to make cognitive, social and experiential neurological links: making connections. Research has also shown that ‘more explorative and less formal’ teaching approaches are conducive to students thinking independently (and making those connections). Inquiry-based learning and assessment have thus been found to be conducive to transformative learning, and correlated with the development of critical thinking and socially responsible global professionals.

While students at all year levels will benefit from connections between research and teaching, the nature of the interactions should vary depending on the year level. In the United States, the Council on Undergraduate Research has developed a Researcher Skill Development Framework that contains a series of levels of researcher autonomy that might be useful in determining ways to incrementally introduce students to research. The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University suggests beginning with inquiry-based learning in Year 1 and culminating with a ‘capstone’ experience based around a major project.

To learn about our colleagues’ approaches, we developed a survey that listed 10 intersections between research and teaching and provided illustrations of each. Research was defined broadly in the examples and included identifying and retrieving information, and rigorous analysis of primary sources and their application. This instrument was distributed to all 21 teaching academics by email. Eleven responses were received and responses were analysed qualitatively and thematically. The limitations of the survey are acknowledged: only just over half the potential participants (52 per cent) responded, and the results could therefore not be said to map the field at UC or more broadly. Nevertheless, we argue that they provide instructive insights into current teaching practices and future directions.

Academic staff in the UC School of Law are actively encouraged to research their teaching and present the results at conferences and in publications. Such research is treated in the same way as discipline-based research: funds are available for conference attendance and the system of rewarding academics who publish applies to scholarship of teaching and learning.

Staff are also encouraged to showcase their teaching methods and pedagogy in fortnightly faculty seminars and at university-wide seminars hosted by the Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC).

The survey reveals the common practice of acting on quantitative and qualitative feedback from the USS. Academics report collaborating with colleagues, the Associate Dean (Education) and the TLC, as well as individual personal reflection, to understand USS feedback and develop appropriate responses in the next iteration of the unit.

Research by another law teacher, through observation, reflection and student feedback, has led to greater flexibility and student choice in assessment items. This teacher begins the semester with a discussion about the assessment items set for the unit, and the different assessment items available to students throughout the semester. These options have been developed in cooperation with colleagues and the TLC, making use of the utilities available on Moodle, the University’s online teaching and learning platform. The results are assessment methods that students find engaging and manageable, increased student choice and autonomy, and assessments that are topical and practically relevant.

Several Law School academics also evaluate their teaching through surveys specifically tailored to investigate targeted aspects of their teaching. Seven respondents had designed their own surveys to seek feedback on specific aspects of their pedagogical practice. These instruments have been used to gauge the effectiveness of new and innovative approaches to teaching core aspects of the curriculum, particularly the use of authentic assessment and work-integrated learning approaches, and to inform changes to unit design.

Finally, peer review, in which colleagues observe and provide feedback on each other’s teaching (including classroom lessons, online delivery, assessment, feedback) is well established among some Law School staff, and is growing with support from a

2011–12 ALTC Grant. Peer review provides an additional source of information about teaching and learning practices, one that is not dependent on student perceptions of quality teaching, but is instead underpinned by the expertise and experience of colleagues.

In 2010, the UC Law curriculum was re-energised by major changes to the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) and Juris Doctor (JD) degree structures. Each degree now has nine elective subjects instead of the previous four. This restructure was driven by a number of factors, including the desirability of student choice and flexibility, and the introduction of more work-integrated learning options, as well as the need to increase student participation in research and opportunities for staff to teach in their areas of research.

Several teaching academics have developed new elective units that mirror their areas of research expertise, enabling them to teach the results of their own research (eg Literature and the Law). The School also has a shell unit, Current Legal Issues, which can be used by staff to teach about a topic of current research. For some academic staff, the curriculum they deliver is informed by their own need to remain current with legal and scholarly developments.

The development of a Law School culture in which staff are encouraged to collaborate on teaching and research, teach in teams and undertake peer review of teaching is also resulting in increased opportunities for staff to teach in their areas of research in circumstances where they are not responsible for convening a unit and determining the curriculum. Survey results indicate a strong culture of academics guest lecturing in their areas of research expertise, a practice which benefits both colleagues and students. An example comes from research on privacy: although there is no unit dedicated to privacy, one respondent had given lectures and seminars on this topic in a range of other units, based on his research.

RLE for the academic is thus a much broader concept than academic engagement in discipline- based research. While engagement in discipline-based research is a prerequisite to RLE, it is not enough in isolation; that research needs to be integrated into curriculum in a way that is engaging to the students.

Several respondents report that they use research-based activities during class time to develop a pedagogical style that moves beyond transmission of content to ‘deep learning’ and cooperative experience. Accordingly, students actively research as they are learning. One respondent, for example, requires first year students to consolidate their newly acquired research skills by discussing a scholarly journal article in weekly seminar classes, thereby increasing students’ exposure to academic research and critical analysis.

The capacity to conduct and effectively communicate legal research and analysis is a fundamental skill for successful legal professionals. This is clearly reflected in the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for the Bachelor of Laws. Threshold Learning Outcome 4 states: Graduates of the Bachelor of Laws will demonstrate the intellectual and practical skills needed to identify, research, evaluate and synthesise relevant factual, legal and policy issues.

Although some survey respondents felt limited by the necessity of an exam in Priestley Eleven units, in reality, it is possible to combine the Priestley focus on content and exam-based assessment with RLE practices.

Within the Law School, many units now involve research-based assessment, as opposed to the traditional examination path. Elective units such as Intellectual Property Law contain a strong research component, which requires students to formulate their own research question and write a paper. In other electives, assessment is wholly research based: in Mental Health and the Law, assessment consists of a peer-review activity, research proposal, research paper and legislative research; in Law and Literature, students complete a short and then long essay on the same topic, enabling them to develop their ideas, arguments and expression with feedback. In other units, research-based assessment departs from this traditional model of scholarly research and writing by embedding research tasks in assessments such as participation in online discussions, reflective journals and learning chronicles.

The new Canberra Law Review unit provides opportunities for high-performing students to enrol as student editors and manage the online publication of a scholarly journal. Student editors are responsible for liaising with contributing authors, editing research articles and checking references, as well as preparing a book review, case note or other piece for publication in the journal. This unit provides research-focused students with an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of scholarly research and publication.

In the new elective unit Law in Action, students complete a project for an external partner. More general benefits that we have observed with this type of RLE include fostering a greater knowledge- building community and developing student–staff relationships. This is particularly evident in units such as Law in Action. It enables the professional community to engage with the Law School and obtain a tangible benefit. The student obtains valuable experience of the legal community, in addition to enhancing research skills and developing contacts in the profession.

A number of survey respondents indicate that academic staff within the Law School collaborate with students outside the curriculum itself. Two respondents report collaborating with Honours students on scholarly publications based on their Honours theses. Several respondents also report employing undergraduates as research assistants. This practice represents multiple intersections between teaching and research. This practice represents multiple intersections between teaching and research. The students learn research skills by acting as quasi-apprentices on projects.

We have demonstrated that a whole-of-institution approach to RLE is necessary for its implementation. This enables the complex overlap between staff and student research to be accommodated and encouraged, and provides the best strategy for integrating staff and students in creating communities of practice. However, there still needs to be strong discipline-based support to develop a culture of RLE. A range of institutional pressures, driven by external factors, also have the potential to limit RLE. These include limits on what is recognised as research.

Students and staff need to be supported to gain the benefits of RLE. The limited time of staff to mentor students needs to be acknowledged. Institutions need to develop sufficient rewards and incentives for participation.

Finally, all changes need to be evaluated to ensure they are leading to better outcomes. Fittingly, we are thus recommending that pedagogically oriented research needs to be conducted on RLE as practised by an institution and individual faculties or schools, to determine whether it is working.