Discoursing the Virtual
Classroom
Professor Abdul Paliwala
Director, ELJ , LCC and
C&IT Director, UKCLE
University of Warwick
a.paliwala@warwick.ac.uk
This is a editorial
comment published on 7 November 2001.
Citation: Paliwala A, 'Discoursing
the Virtual Classroom', 2001 (3) The Journal of
Information, Law and Technology
(JILT)<http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-3/paliwala.html>.New
citation as at 1/1/04:
<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_3/paliwala/>.
1.
Introduction
This editorial comment is intended
to raise two specific issues in relation to four interesting
articles on information technology in legal education. After
describing the tenor of the articles by Le Brun , Woods , Byrnes and Poyton , it goes on to add
support to Le Brun's deliberately trenchant critique of the way we
reward ICT based educational development work. More significantly
(to provoke debate - contributions welcome!) I take issue with
Robert Wood's suggestion that the economic benefits of online
learning are so great that we can afford to dismiss the wider
social and cultural changes which may result from such
changes.
2.
The Value of Academic Development in ICT
Discourse on information and
communication technologies (ICT) in legal education has moved from
'How I did IT' technology descriptions to an integrated
consideration of technology and pedagogy in the context of social,
economic and cultural change ( Paliwala, 2001 ). I would therefore like to
fully support Marlene Le Brun's deliberately trenchant statement from personal
experience on the issue of the value of academic development in the
ICT area. Marlene is the co-author of The Quiet (R)evolution:
Improving Student Learning in Law. Her argument is
appropriately developed in the context of her interesting CD-ROM
project on teaching legal ethics. It suggests that law academics
involved with ICT are under-valued in respect of their work for
tenure, promotion, teaching and research evaluation purposes. This
issue is of equal significance in the United Kingdom, inspite of
some recent progress. While technology development work is in
principle recognised in the UK for the purposes of the Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE), which ranks law schools in terms of
their research strength, it is left to each panel to determine the
value to be given to such work. In the case of law, there was a
considerable concern among academics involved with ICT that the
definition of research as 'scholarship' would not give sufficient
weight to technology development or pedagogical initiatives. We
were also concerned that ICT expertise was not represented in the
panel membership. This led to special discussions between the
British & Irish Law Education Technology Association ( BILETA ) and the Law
Panel. The Panel invited BILETA to indicate a list of national
subject experts who could be referred to for assessing ICT
applications, pedagogy and law work where appropriate. It will be
interesting to observe the extent to which such reference is
made.
3.
The Virtual Law School
It is commendable that the status
of ICT issue has not prevented innovative and pedagogically
informed academic development. Robert Woods in his thorough and careful study 'Order in the Virtual
Law Classroom...' provides an optimistic assessment of ways in
which effective learning can be delivered. He suggests that this
can be best achieved:
'by asking the same key questions
one would ask in the traditional setting; namely, what are the
critical learning goals and objectives for this course?'
Once this is achieved, the
technical approach to undertake is:
'convergence... through a
combination of traditional computer assisted learning tools and
computer mediated communications - where educational technologies
do not operate independently of one another but in
concert'.
He suggests that the assessment of
success of the strategy can be best done by a variety of research
techniques.
4.
ICT in a LLM Course in the US
William Byrnes provides a
similarly optimistic pedagogically informed account of online
learning - this time from the perspective of a leading practitioner
of online learning in a US LLM programme on International Tax and
Offshore Financial Centers. Engaging with the US pedagogic debate
on the merits of the Socratic approach, he suggests
that:
'the grounding of a LLM (masters)
level legal education program exclusively using the Socratic method
(case study) roots of traditional Juris Doctorate (graduate) legal
education may neither meet the goals, nor produce the skills sought
by this Program'.
Instead, he proposes 'bridging the
gap' as outlined by Davis and Steinglass, Hawkins-Leon and Kerper.
He also commends Thiemann's application of:
'inclusive' low-anxiety
feminist pedagogy in the classroom to create an environment of
diverse discussion'.
5.
ICT in a Post-graduate Course in the UK
In a slightly different
vein, Poyton in his Work in
Progress Report is concerned to explore the way in which students
are responding to two different modes of ICT based course delivery.
Such comparative assessment will be of great assistance in our
assessment of how to integrate ICT in legal education.
From his research so far, Poyton
concludes that the use of ICT is beneficial to students' learning
but that it cannot wholly replace traditional seminars and human
interaction which makes the learning experience so profound. His
final research paper will evaluate the various approaches taken in
a bid to establish just how much ICT contributes to the student
learning experience.
6.
Conclusion: The Social, Economic and Political Implications of
Virtual Learning
While the infusion of pedagogical
considerations in all the three latter articles is particularly
welcome, this does not overcome a serious problem of lack of
consideration of social, economic and political implications of the
development of virtual learning by Woods and Byrnes . Woods in
particular suggests that the 'economic benefits of online education
are considerable'. Therefore, we are made to believe that this
dominant criterion should allow us to ignore all other issues and
considerations - particularly 'inflammatory rhetoric' which points
out the dangers of globalisation of legal education.
Firstly, I do not think the
economic case for online learning is as simple as roundtable
discussion in the US makes out. No less an authority on the subject
than Sir John Daniel ( 1996 ) of the
UK Open University who has warned against the dangers of simplistic
economic assumptions in the design of on-line learning programmes.
US academic institutions are wary of getting their fingers burnt in
virtual distance learning programmes ( Blumenstyk, 2001 ). I also do not think clear
consideration has been given as yet to the economics of web and
communication based learning development. It is because we tried to
do this in the case of the Iolis development that we were able to
suggest that quality technology development requires considerable
investment and therefore is best done co-operatively ( Paliwala, 1998 ).
Secondly, ignoring the wider social
context in which legal education takes place can be pedagogically
damaging. Issues such as what are the objectives of legal education
require consideration of what types of law and law communities are
likely to be served by the educational process. In this context, it
is surely important to question the possible implications
of globalisation of learning, for example for legal cultures
outside the metropolitan countries ( Martin,
2000 , Paliwala, 2001 ).
Similarly, much of the current economic notion of virtual learning
ignores the role of academics researchers. There are serious
dangers in the disarticulation of research and teaching for both
research and teaching, and especially for academic lawyers. It is
important to emphasise that technology based learning can deliver
at least as good pedagogy as traditional methods. However, ignoring
wider social concerns is as bad as ignoring pedagogical
issues.
References
Blumenstyk, G (2001) Temple U. shuts down for-profit
distance-education company, The Chronicle of Higher
Education July 20, ppA29-30.
Daniel, Sir J (1996), Mega-Universities and
Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher Education ,
London, Kogan Page.
Martin, P (2000), 'Impermanent Boundaries - Imminent
Challenges to Professional Identities and Institutional
Competence', Commentary 2000 (2) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology
(JILT). < http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2000_2/martin/>.
Paliwala, A (1998), 'Co-operative Development of CAL
Materials: A Case Study of IOLIS', 1998 (3) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology
(JILT). < http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_3/paliwala/>
Paliwala A (2001), 'Learning in Cyberspace', 2001
(1) The Journal of Information, Law
and Technology (JILT). < http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_1/paliwala/>
|