Abstract

<p>This paper originated as a session at the Society of Legal Scholars conference in Leicester in September 2002. The writers4 have been teaching in Northumbria University’s Student Law Office for a number of years. We knew the practical benefits of clinical legal education but two particular problems presented themselves. The first was articulating the rationale for doing it beyond the fact that it exposes students to real practice. Given the fact that the UK already has a training contract regime whereby trainee solicitors spend the first two years of their professional life being supervised and supported by qualified professionals, what is the purpose of clinical legal education? The second problem we had arose when we looked at our Year 3 training programme5 and then student attitudes and ability when they reached the Year 4 programme.</p><p>We found that many of our new Year 4 students did not engage in our firm meetings to discuss other students’ cases very well. That once the client had been interviewed many of them simply approached their supervisor for the next step. That they effectively expected the supervisor to tell them where to look for the law, or just tell them the law. In short that they had some way to go in becoming effective problem solvers.</p><p>It was these difficulties that drew us to the theory of Problem Based Learning (PBL) and its methodology. This paper explores this element of what we are trying to achieve through the clinic experience, the basic theory of PBL6, a description of the problems that we have encountered with our programme, the implementation of PBL in our Year 3 programme and some research conducted into the student experience in our new Year 3 programme.</p>

Highlights

  • Journal of Clinical Legal Education. It was these difficulties that drew us to the theory of Problem Based Learning (PBL) and its methodology. This paper explores this element of what we are trying to achieve through the clinic experience, the basic theory of PBL6, a description of the problems that we have encountered with our programme, the implementation of PBL in our Year 3 programme and some research conducted into the student experience in our new Year 3 programme

  • The PBL elements of working in a pair, working in a group to identify problems and working in a group to discuss research were all rated favourably by the majority of students, though the question of how much time was taken on group and pair work was less clear cut

  • PBL in this instance appears to have q Been an enjoyable experience for students, even though time-consuming and hard work relative to more traditional methods q In particular, sharing research in groups was a good experience for students q Been an experience that around half of students would like to repeat q Encouraged students to develop high levels of confidence in research skills and practical legal skills q Had a positive, though not so strong effect on students confidence about their knowledge of the law q Made the majority of students feel that they can cope with real cases in year 4

Read more

Summary

Including for example the Attorney General for England and Wales

By 1994 the Student Law Office was a compulsory element for all year 4 students taking the exempting degree and we provided a training programme based on a simulated case study to year 3 students with the aim of preparing them for their real client work. The objectives embrace the necessity of reflective work[21] as part of the experiential learning cycle, they refer to development of students’ analytical skills and of their abilities to plan, progress and action cases and to identify and respond to the a particular needs of the client These were ambitious objectives, but we hoped that the integrated nature of the exempting degree would prepare students for the year four programme. In addition all students taking part in the year 4 programme had to participate in a programme in year 3 which was to prepare them for the live client work

18 Donald Schon – Educating the Reflective Practitioner 1987
The problem is presented in the same way as presented in reality
Staff are facilitators not instructors
46 Ibid P86
49 Biting Off What They Can Chew
51 See above note 42 P441
53 Admittedly the feedback referred to here was not gathered in a systematic way
Results
58 A copy can be found at appendix D 54
Conclusions
“Aims
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call