Using self- and peer assessment at honours level: bridging the gap between law school and the workplace

Law Teacher

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 73-91

  Murdoch, Jim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924039666     PISSN: 03069400     EISSN: 19430353     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03069400.2014.988491     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Research was funded by the University of Glasgow’s Learning and Teaching Service. Standard ethical approval was obtained, and students were approached after their selection for the course.
2. Anonymity was guaranteed. Interviews with students took place at three stages of the course and after its conclusion; consent was also received for the disclosure of comments in reflective logs and evaluation forms (the latter being course requirements). This work was completed by a researcher who himself had been a student on the course some seven years previously.
3. G. Brown, J. Bull and M. Pendlebury, Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education (London, Routledge, 1997), pp. 23–29.
4. S. Lindblom-Ylänne, H. Pihlajamaki and T. Kotkas, “Self-, Peer- and Teacher-Assessment of Student Essays” (2006) 7 Active Learning in Higher Education: The Journal of the Institute for Learning and Teaching 51–62.
5. University of Technology Sydney, “Assessment Futures”, http://www.uts.edu.au/research-andteaching/ teaching-and-learning/assessment/assessment-futures/key-assessment-elements-1 (accessed 11 November 2014).
6. J. Murdoch, “Using Group Skills In Honours Teaching: The European Human Rights Project” (1994) 28 Law Teacher 258–269.
7. But it is not a “moot” in the normally accepted meaning of the term: no judgment on the merits is given at the conclusion of the “Grand Chamber” hearing as the contemporary nature of the issues reduces the risk that a particular issue will fall clearly to be decided in favour of a particular team, and in any event, certain of the issues may indeed be pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
8. C. Grossman, C. Marti and D. Rodriguez-Pinzon, Advocating for Human Rights: 10 years of the Inter-American Moot Court Competition (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2008).
9. The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) are now expressed as follows: by the end of the course, each student should be able to: demonstrate an awareness of and the ability to apply the enforcement machinery under the European Convention on Human Rights; analyse a complex human rights problem, and identify and apply relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and other instruments and standards in the field of human rights, making use of appropriate external assistance; present effective oral and written legal argument both as an individual and as a member of a group; recognise and make use of necessary elements for successful teamwork, including through contributing each student’s particular skills and strengths; and demonstrate appropriate standards of behaviour both as an individual and within a group situation, including ethical standards expected in the legal profession.
10. Student comments included the following: “With other courses I’ve done well, got good grades, but didn’t really feel I got a lot out them. With this, I expect to get more out of it …” (Student J); “Honours courses last year I expected to be different from anything we’ve ever done but they weren’t – you can do work or you can’t, you can revise for the subject or not. But with this you have to work over the year …” (Student I); and “[In a traditional examination] it’s not usually your overall knowledge that is tested, it’s just how much you have studied. Some people are better at learning for exams – but really, you’re just scratching at the surface” (Student B); and “It’s law in practice, rather than an academic heavy course …” (Student H).
11. “I am looking forward to hearing what criticism the others have to offer, both good and bad, so long as it is constructive. I think I am aware of my own strengths and weaknesses but would like to hear from them also … So long as they can offer me constructive criticism I don’t care … I did this for self-improvement, not to make new friends …” (Student C); and “Whatever happens at assessment I will have achieved a great amount from this course in terms of written communication, oral communication, teamwork, and having made several new friends … The great thing about the Project is that it is a really good bonding experience” (Student J).
12. “I learned to maximise research methods … identify and highlight issues of contention … formulate arguments in a coherent and creative manner …” (Student D); “I learnt more effectively by using a wide variety of primary and secondary sources … This is by far the most demanding course I have ever taken and involves genuine deep learning rather than surface learning … This form of independent learning requires a greater understanding than traditional seminar teaching methods” (Student J); “I definitely learned more effectively … with a far better understanding (in depth) of [ECHR] jurisprudence, principles, machinery and geography than would have ever been attained in a traditional lesson set-up” (Student G); “I feel that the independence of the course gave me a strong responsibility to ensure that my own learning was up to the necessary standard, [and] the pressure of being part of a group contributed to this” (Student F); “I have developed my skills set enormously from taking this course … independent learning, professional skills development, teamwork, incredible learning experience” (Student J); “I have learnt throughout to be less demanding and to try to accommodate other people’s sensitivities” (Student C); “The ‘hands-off’ approach cannot be exaggerated or the project risks becoming disorganised and losing its strengths. [However,] this project improved the effectiveness of my learning as it forced me to research in such depth that I have never had to do for another course” (Student I); “My written skills have really improved as I feel much more confident in my own ability to put a point across clearly … [Also] I feel more confident when communicating and feel this is reflected in my work” (Student B);
13. “Problem solving was undoubtedly the most improved area for me … my reasoning and critical analysis have also become stronger as I have begun to think more logically and thoroughly when addressing issues” (Student B); and “The project is without a doubt the best, though most challenging, course for learning and improving problem solving abilities … our powers of reasoning improved considerably … [and] self-assessment also ensures that you engage in critical analysis throughout the duration of the course” (Student G).
14. P. Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed., London, RoutledgeFalmer, 2003), pp. 67–72.
15. J. Cowan and A. Harding, “A Logical Model for Curriculum Development” (1986) 17 British Journal of Educational Technology 103–110 (this is specifically the model used at the University of Glasgow).
16. M. Golby, “Curriculum Traditions”, in B. Moon, P. Murphy and J. Raynor (eds), Policies for the Curriculum (London, Routledge, 1989), at pp. 31–32.
17. Thus one student commented at the outset of the course that “because [the course] is peerassessed, I’m worried that people will try to outdo each other, and do unnecessary work” (Student B).
18. “I’m worried about the teamwork aspect. As much as I don’t want to let myself down, I don’t want to let my team down … The lack of teacher involvement means you’ll probably get a more accurate overview of how you work in a team and how you apply yourself. But if it comes down to substantive work I’m not sure that the other team members are in the best position to grade each other …” (Student C); “Self-assessment at the end will be hard – not just assessing yourself but assessing others in your team, which can be hard when you develop friendships – at the end of the day you might have to take someone aside and be critical of their performance …” (Student H); and “I’m not too sure about what self-assessment will involve. We’ll be working together a year which will mean we’ll get to know each other well. It could be difficult but because it’s such a small group and small course I’m sure everyone will give 100 per cent because it is so demanding …” (Student F).
19. G. Gibbs, “The Assessment of Group Work: Lessons from the Literature”, available at http://www.brookes.ac.uk/aske/documents/Brookes%20groupwork%20Gibbs%20Dec%2009.pdf (accessed 11 November 2014), at p. 12: “If marking criteria involve weakly defined generic outcomes (such as ‘group skills’) or professional outcomes (such as competence in a complex performance e.g. ‘interviewing a client’) rather than familiar academic forms of performance (such as a problem sheet or essay) the range of marks is again likely to be narrow, due to the difficulty of distinguishing levels of performance.” This article also contains a review of relevant literature on group assessment.
20. R.J. Lawson, T.L. Taylor, D.G. Thompson, L. Simpson, M. Freeman, L. Treleaven and F. Rohde, “Engaging with Graduate Attributes through Encouraging Accurate Student Self-Assessment” (2012) 8 Asian Social Science (references omitted); available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n4p3 (accessed 11 November 2014), at p. 4: “In all forms of assessment there are two key stages: firstly, an appreciation of the criteria and standards required for succeeding in an assessment task, and secondly, the ability to make a judgement about whether work meets these criteria and standards.… When self-assessment is fostered in a manner that facilitates both the understanding of criteria and standards, as well as accurate self-judgement, then it contributes to a variety of central goals of university education.”
21. http://www.uts.edu.au/ research-and-teaching/teaching-and-learning/assessment/assessment-futures/key-assessment-elements-1 (accessed 11 November 2014).
22. Lawson et al., supra n. 20, p. 4.
23. Gibbs, supra n. 17, at pp. 8–10 reviews existing literature and suggests that student grades generally correspond with staff assessment (with an average correlation of about +0.7), but notes there is also a phenomenon whereby higher-ability students may under-grade themselves. A survey by a colleague at Glasgow, Prof James Chalmers, showed that students did score more highly, receiving a mark which was almost precisely one marking grade (1.03) higher than their mean mark in other level 4 coursework, but he concluded that such an outcome was exactly as expected given the increased student engagement and commitment. His survey also indicated that the students were academically at the top of their year group. A subsequent review of another year group provided a similar conclusion, but also some evidence even of under-grading as in two cases the course grades were lower (by 1.0 and 0.5) than each student’s mean overall grade for Honours work.
24. G. Tolley, “Learning and Assessment”, in P. Murphy and B. Moon, Developments in Learning and Assessment (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), at p. 256.
25. Lawson et al., supra n. 20.
26. Gibbs, supra n. 17, at p. 12; noting also at pp. 8–9 that the research literature suggests that “social interactions had negligible effects on marks [but that the] key issue seems to be whether students understand and are committed to the educational rationale of group assessment and so adopt a responsible attitude to it”.
27. E. von Glasersfeld, “Learning as a Constructive Activity”, in P. Murphy and B. Moon, Developments in Learning and Assessment (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), at pp. 12–13.
28. Gibbs, supra n. 17, at p. 10: “There is a range of evidence that the act of peer assessment is, itself, a learning experience and improves student learning, independently of the fairness or usefulness of the grades that are produced”.
29. Tolley, supra n. 24, at p. 256: “examinations have especially poor validity in measuring or indicating competence, [that is] the ability to perform a task satisfactorily. They have some competence in measuring performance on a particular occasion an in particular, and in narrowly constraining, circumstances. They do not indicate or measure the basic ability to perform.”