United Kingdom Journals

Effective Teaching and Learning of Law on the Web

Richard Jones

Reader in Law and IT
School of Law and Applied Social Sciences
Liverpool John Moores University
UK
<r.p.jones@livjm.ac.uk>

John Scully

Research Fellow
The Open University
Milton Keyes
UK
<lswjscul@livjm.ac.uk>

Copyright © 1998 Richard Jones and John Scully.
First Published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues in association with Blackstone Press Ltd.

Summary

In this article we will consider the effectiveness of the World Wide Web as a teaching and learning environment. Effective teaching environments allow 'deep learning' to take place. Deep learning, we will show, can be achieved through collaborative learning. We will consider whether it can be achieved by utilising the techniques developed within Computer Mediated Communication to support some form of collaborative learning using the present technology offered by the World Wide Web so that effective learning environments can be created.

Contents

Introduction

The aims and objectives of legal education

Misconceptions about the Web

Information is not learning

Attributes of effective learning

1. Active Learning and Construction of Knowledge

2. Co-operation and Teamwork in Learning

3. Learning via Problem Solving

Collaborative learning on the Web

Design examples of collaborative learning on the Web

The Web and Legal Education

Bibliography

Introduction

The World Wide Web (the Web) provides a powerful means of communication. It functions through the application of Network, Hypertext and Multi-Media technologies. The Web was founded in 1988 by Tim Berners-Lee of the CERN Laboratories in Switzerland and can be best understood as an elaboration and conglomeration of preceding technologies. It functions via TCP/IP - a networking protocol - which was originally intended to allow scientists to exchange information quickly and efficiently. The concept of the Web crystallised when the first browser was developed by two students of the University of Illinois in the early 1990's. They wrote a program which would allow the user of the information to view that information through a common, easy-to-use interface. They called this interface 'Mosaic'. This interface was to function in more or less the same way as any other interface in a Windows environment. Its main purpose was to make information retrieval for the user easier on the Web. The design became the premier interface on the Web. One of the students, Marc Andreeson, left the University to start up his own company in California. The company produced a new and improved design of browser - Netscape's 'Navigator'. Navigator now vies with Microsoft's 'Internet Explorer' for the place as the world's most popular browser.

In this article we will consider the effectiveness of the Web as a teaching and learning environment. Effective teaching environments allow 'deep learning' to take place. Deep learning describes the process whereby the learner acquires the ability:

• To focus on what is signified (e.g. the author's argument, or the concepts applicable to solving the problem.)
• To relate previous knowledge to new knowledge
• To relate knowledge from different courses
• To relate theoretical ideas to everyday experience
• To relate and distinguish evidence and argument
• To organise and structure content into a coherent whole

Deep learning, we will show, can be achieved through collaborative learning. We will consider whether it can be achieved by utilising the techniques developed within Computer Mediated Communication to support some form of collaborative learning using the present technology offered by the Web so that effective learning environments can be created.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

The aims and objectives of legal education

The Ormrod Committee stated that the outcome of the academic stage of legal education should be a student who has:

"1. A basic knowledge of the law and where to find it;
2. An understanding of the relationship of law to the social and economic environment in which it operates; and,
3. The ability to handle facts and to apply abstract concepts to those facts."

The recent consultation paper of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct (ACLEC), considers the aims, form, method and content of legal education (For a critical view, see Bradney (1995)). The consultation paper shows a merging of the aims of legal education with those of higher education generally. ACLEC suggests four main aims for undergraduate legal education:

"to provide an understanding of the fundamental principles and concepts of English Law and the Law of the EC, and develop the skills needed to solve legal problems
to provide a rigorous theoretical and analytical education to enable students to develop a constructive and critical approach to the processes of law;
to enable students to see the law within its social, economic, political, historical, ethical and cultural context;
to inform by comparisons from other legal systems"

This is not however the complete picture for legal education is a mix of academic and vocational requirements. The vocational requirements encouraging skills which tend to be more logical, heterogeneous and procedurally governed. Yet both in the academic and vocation stages the ability to think critically is considered important. There is a clear indication from the consultation paper of the need to encourage original and critical thought within the academic stage. As for the practitioner others have pointed out that a 'practitioner who understands, inquires, thinks independently, and even originally, must be better than one who does not.' (Oliver, 1994)

More recently the Dearing report (Dearing, 1997) has suggested a central role for the use of information technology in higher education teaching. Laurillard (1997) has suggested that this could mean a shift to resource based learning:

"we must plan to replace some lectures with resource based learning... to replace some seminar groups with online discussions."

It is then inevitable that law teachers will focus on the Web as a mechanism for the delivery of such resource-based learning. In our view, the inappropriate use of the Web will fail to provide effective resource-based learning in much the same way as some existing learning environments fail to facilitate deep learning. The consultation paper in relation to legal education states the problem and proffers in general terms the solution:

"these functions cannot be carried out through learning dominated by passively absorbing or receiving knowledge. It requires an active process which promotes the general powers of the mind, and enables students not merely to know or know how to but to understand why things are as they are and how they could be different and to relate ideas in one subject to those of others, to understand what they read, questioning material, making links, and pursuing lines of inquiry out of interest." (Section 2.2)

Use of the Web must be approached with caution if it is to provide the learning experience expected of higher education of the 21st century.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Misconceptions about the Web

The Web was not designed for learning. Furthermore, it is neither free nor universally available. It is not a highway nor is it easily navigable. Access (and funding) is dominated by state-subsidised academic institutions in the First World. Information placed on the Web is neither censored nor refereed. Most information is of little use. Navigation via a hypertext-based system is like traversing a world of information through a myriad of interconnected country lanes rather than highways. There are millions of lanes (links). Each click of the mouse brings one to a new cross-road (node) from which there are many other lanes, pointing the user out towards other nodes of information. The information we require is often difficult to find. It may not exist on the Web at all. Navigation involves 'hoping'. There is also no quick and reliable method by which the user is informed that the information they seek does not exist on the Web.

As such it is not reasonable to assume that the Web is able to provide an effective learning environment. For many law schools the information providing potential of the Web (perhaps via an intranet) is the area of development that is logical to explore given the Web's basic information giving aim. The Web can provide lecture material to be downloaded or copied whenever it is needed. Lecture notes with pointers to other Web sites embedded in them help students navigate the global Web. Members of staff might be contacted through the email function (merely clicking on their name on the relevant Web page) embodied within the Web pages. Student information handbooks, amendments, notices, course details and timetables could all be placed on the Web. Web pages that are interactive could allow students to make module choices or other choices electronically.

The use of Web pages can therefore facilitate the use of the information provision service by students based locally around the University. Not only does it appear sensible logistically to provide information via the Web, but the students themselves seem to be demonstrating a willingness to accept and use information from the Web.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Information is not learning

Will academics then be tempted to take the next logical step and place academic materials on the Web thus creating what may be considered to be a learning environment? Providing information, or better access to information, does not necessarily promote learning, as Wan & Johnson (1994, at p.852) comment:

"While virtual classrooms and hypermedia systems are successful in improving information access, they do not typically offer explicit mechanisms to help learners better assimilate information, the context surrounding its creation and use, and the perspective of the author and other learners."

They further remark that information access alone, without a means for learning the information `effectively', or, a means for turning information into knowledge, results in numerous design faults, namely information overload and navigation problems. Furthermore, placing information in a hypertext form is of itself unlikely to overcome these difficulties. Yet substantial advantages are claimed for providing information in a hypertext format - the form of storage used on the Web. The hypertext facility providing: `instant and convenient access to large amount of full text primary sources... will encourage students to explore and become increasingly familiar with the true raw materials of the law rather than the pre-cooked, pre-digested versions...found in the ubiquitous case books' (Widdison, 1995). In a recent paper Jones & Scully (1996) commented:

"Little evidence for the inherent advantages of hypertext systems of facilities is offered. This is in no way unique , the development of educational technology is characterised by an atheoretical approach, embracing technology for technologies sake. The results of this approach are, more often or not, shoddy attempts to simulate teaching and usually pass as fads..."

This is not to say that developments should not be initiated. A properly structured hypertext system can, in addition to information retrieval, offer facilities that will encourage the deep learning. To do this, the hypertext environment should reflect sound pedagogical principles that are shown to encourage deep as opposed to surface learning.

We submit that the same can be said for the totality of the Web. Learning materials on the Web can only facilitate deep learning if used within a total learning environment that encourages deep learning. Such an environment will consist of teaching and assessment methods suitably tailored to the subject content and the learner's style (Jones, 1994). The learning environment must contain the teacher, the learner, the knowledge and the problem (Vygotsky, 1978). Merely providing information - even in a hypertext format - on the Web does not provide for effective learning.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Attributes of effective learning

There is no recognised unified learning theory against which all learning environments can be tested. However certain key attributes of effective learning be identified (Ramsden, 1992). These attributes can be used to assist in the design of effective learning environments. Alavi breaks these attributes down into three areas (Alavi, 1995a):

1. Active Learning and Construction of Knowledge

Learning is an active, constructive and goal-orientated process. Learners construct meaning from the material studied by processing it through existing mental structures and then retaining it in long-term memory where it remains available for further processing and possible reconstruction (Johnson et al., 1991). Engaging students in constructing knowledge by acquiring, generating, analysing, manipulating, and structuring information, one provides the circumstances by which `effective' learning takes place. This active and constructive learning and is a vital tenet in the support of legal education as it pursues the inculcation of critical skills. McDonnell (McDonnell, 1990) points out, when speaking of teaching law students manual legal research, that 'some students must be taken out of the lecture hall and onto the playing court' in order for them to learn effectively.

2. Co-operation and Teamwork in Learning

This learning theory focuses on the social aspect of learning and postulates that co-operative rather than competitive interactions between students are more effective in the provision of the environment by which effective learning is possible (Deutsch, 1949, at p. 231). Piaget wrote that peer interaction forces the learner to 'decenter' by taking the perspective of the other (Piaget, 1965). He argues that peer interaction prods development by posing critical cognitive conflicts (a perceived sense of contradiction between what the child believes and what the world is telling the child). Team members can monitor individual thinking, opinions and beliefs, and provide feedback for clarification and change (`effective' learning as defined by Ramsden, 1988).

3. Learning via Problem Solving

Laurillard advocates the use of problem-solving tasks 'as an important part of students' work because they require the application of knowledge and principles to new situations, thus testing and reinforcing the students' real understanding of what they have learned' (Laurillard, 1984). Learning then occurs in challenging problem-solving situations in which mental models are tested, extended and refined until they are effective and reliable in solving that problem.

Shuell (1986) argues that learning methodologies that encompass these three attributes of effective learning have and must be promoted over traditional methodologies which involve passive, competitive and individualistic learning. One such methodology that may have some relevance to the Web is that of collaborative learning. The work of Damon (1985) and Sullivan (1953) connect `effective' learning with collaborative learning on a theoretical level. Collaborative learning is a seemingly logical method for the development of `effective' learning. Alavi (1995b, at p. 161) describes collaborative learning as involving 'social (interpersonal) processes by which a small group of students work together (i.e. co-operate and work as a team) to complete an academic problem-solving task designed to promote learning.' He reminds us why one would want to approach the task of `effective' learning collaboratively:

"In collaborative learning situations, through conversations, discussion and debate, participants offer explanations, interpretations, and resolutions to problems. This leads to active and social construction of knowledge and development and internalisation of meaning and understanding. Furthermore, group discussions reveal different views and enable a more comprehensive conception and understanding to emerge." (Alavi et al 1995b)

Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the superiority of collaborative learning over traditional modes of learning. Johnson & Johnson (1989) record that over 500 experimental studies and about 100 correlation studies of collaborative learning involving different subject matters and different subject types (adult and children) have been conducted since the 1800's. These studies and the meta-analysis of their findings provide compelling evidence of the relative effectiveness of collaborative learning in terms of learning achievement, student satisfaction with the learning process and outcomes, and quality of interpersonal relationships and the emotional climate of the learning environment. The following are the main findings of the research on collaborative learning.

• Co-operative learning experiences tend to promote more learning than individualistic learning experiences.
• Co-operative learning experiences compared to competitive and individualistic ones tend to promote higher motivation to learn, especially intrinsic motivation.
• Co-operative learning experiences promote intellectual growth.
• Collaborative learning procedures have been shown to enhance student satisfaction with the learning and classroom experience.
• Collaborative learning situations promotes a more emotionally positive learning environment, compared to competitive and individual learning environments.

Collaborative learning has certain debilitating effects derived from the fact that learning groups can be seen as social systems in which cognitive, motivational and behavioural processes become increasingly interdependent. These interdependencies give rise to negative effects on learning. Salomon & Globerson (1989) identified four such effects:

1. The `Free-rider' Effect

In a learning pair it can sometimes occur that one student clearly has more ability to complete the given learning task than the other. The latter team member thus leaves the task to the other more able team member.

2. The `Sucker' Effect

In a disjunctive task, the more able member of the group may discover that he or she is being taken for a free ride. Such a learner may gradually come to expend less mental effort in order not to be taken advantage of.

3. Status Differential Effects

The perceived high ability of some team members in a learning group creates status sensitivities. Higher status members dominate group activity with the effect that they receive and give more help than the learners of lower ability.

4. Ganging up on the Task

In another learning situation one may find a situation where only one of the team members would like to achieve the task. It is an additive task and so the team negotiates with another to find a solution which requires the least amount of effort. Group harmony is thus achieved as the team gangs up on the task. The team finds ways of going through the motions without actually expending and pooling their efforts as expected.

The debilitating effects mentioned above can manifest themselves in any group. In order to negative the debilitating effects the following measures should be taken within the design of a collaborative learning scheme:

• Group goals must be clearly specified and understood, be relevant to the needs of group members, highlight the positive interdependence of members, and evoke from every member a high level of commitment to their accomplishment
• Group members must communicate their ideas and feelings accurately and clearly.
• Participation and leadership must be distributed amongst members.
• Appropriate decision making procedures must be used flexibly to match them with the needs of the situation.
• Conflicts should be encouraged and managed constructively
• Power and Influence need to be approximately equal throughout the group.

Any learning environment which supports the positive outcomes of collaborate learning and limits the negative effects will be a valid environment for the facilitation of effective learning. How then can the Web, in whatever form, support effective learning? It is possible that collaborative learning may be achieved through developments in Computer Mediated Communication.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Collaborative learning on the Web

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) provides the basis for collaborative learning on the Web. CMC, it has been claimed, is creating a new environment of on-line education, which provides '... unprecedented opportunities for educational interactivity' and which '... can be used as a powerful tool for group communication and co-operative learning' (Kaye, 1992). CMC is any human-to-human communication via a computer interface, and, its many forms (and evolving forms) subject to the nature of the implementing software, all facilitate human communication to some extent.

The logical extensions of CMC have now developed to support forms of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). These extensions fall into two broad categories - virtual classrooms and hypermedia systems. In virtual classrooms, learners can interact with their peers and instructors and access on-line information in a manner independent of time and geographic location. Virtual classrooms range from plain email, computer conferencing and bulletin-board systems, to more specialised systems such as 'EIES' (Hiltz, 1988) and 'CoSy' (Mason & Kaye, 1989). These systems augment traditional classroom learning by removing the requirement for physical co-presence, synchronous communication, and improving access to information and people.

As for hypermedia systems, Wan & Johnson (1994) identify such systems as 'Intermedia' (Yankelovich et al., 1988) and 'Mosaic' (Andreeson, 1993) as allowing communication within the classroom in that they typically provide distributed mechanisms for structuring large information spaces. Such systems provide mechanisms for presentation and integration of various media formats including text, graphics, audio and video. Hypermedia systems improve access by removing the constraint of text-based interaction, broadening the scope of shareable information, and reducing the effort required to make the information shareable.

Wan & Johnson (1994) comment:

"While virtual classrooms and hypermedia systems are successful in improving information access, they do not typically offer explicit mechanisms to help learners better assimilate information, the context surrounding its creation and use, and the perspective of the author and other learners."

They further remark that information access alone, without a means for learning the information `effectively', or, a means for turning information into knowledge, results in numerous design faults, namely information overload and navigation problems. They maintain, therefore, in the interests of effective learning, that new software systems need to provide learners with structural and process-level support on 'how to comprehend new information, and how to identify, compare and integrate different interpretations of the same information.' Tomlinson & Henderson (1995, at p.139), in their review of CSCL in schools, conclude that: 'the potential of CSCL has yet to be exploited in any depth. What little work that has been accomplished suggests that the concept is a useful one' A brief examination of the empirical research studies so far seem to reflect this opinion with regard to the potential of CSCL but paint a mixed picture of CSCL in the support of `effective' learning.

Can CMC support collaborative learning? We believe it can and draw support for such a proposition from the following sources. Firstly the International Executive Forum (1983-1991) run annually by the Western Behavioural Sciences Institute (WBSI) in La Jolla, California, U.S.A. (Kaye, 1992). This electronic forum reflected a positive environment for the exchange and discussion of concepts, ideas and information within a small group of academic peers. There was a perceived 'high quality and value' to the on-line discussions. The technology used was basic electronic mail which supported both private bilateral email and group unilateral email through the implementation of a mailing list. While this forum does indicate that computer conferencing via email does support collaborative learning, it cannot be relied upon as an indicator as the subjects were made up of non-student academics. It does, however, give an indication of the potential of the role of computer conferencing in CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning).

Secondly Graddol (1989) cites Flander's `two-third' rule in his essay in support of CMC for learning. Flanders demonstrated in a field study of American schools that two thirds of the classroom talk is by the teacher and one third is by the student. He maintains that this is probably a conservative estimate and speculates that the teacher contribution to the class discussion is probably somewhere above 66% of class time. He comments that such teacher-mediated is often an inefficient environment for learning as it thwarts co-operative and active learning principles. For `effective' learning to increase, therefore, the percentage of the teacher's discourse time must be lowered. Hiltz (1986) found that in on-line mediated classes in adjunct mode, students were responsible for 66% to 83% of the course discourse for the three course analysed. This fact allows Hiltz to conclude that, in adjunct mode, CMC increased class participation and thus improved the environment for `effective' learning.

Thirdly Hiltz (1990) reported that in undergraduate courses (sociology, management, statistics, mathematics and computer science), where the students either received the course exclusively via the traditional methodologies or exclusively via an on-line environment (primary mode), there are no significant differences in grade attainment. However, Hiltz (1986) reports that where CMC is used in `adjunct' mode (the on-line environment is used in addition to traditional teaching and learning methods), a 'better learning experience' versus an exclusive application of the traditional methodologies, was reported overall. Hiltz acknowledges the following factors as being instrumental in the success of CMC in an `adjunct' mode:

• CMC offered a medium in which the problems of communication inhibitions, adequate preparation time, and access to tutors, were minimised. This was not possible through traditional methodologies.
• Manipulation of CMC by allowing users access to the comments of other students once they have submitted a comment themselves provided a mechanism for the reducing of the `free-rider' effect.

Fourthly It has been argued that CMC extends and equalises information exchange, that it releases the individual from the proximal power of others and from certain debilitating influences from the group, and that consequently it cultivates diversity and democracy in collective activities (i.e. learning) and decision making (Spears & Lea, 1994). The growing body of empirical evidence in this field suggests that CMC can serve to reduce social barriers to communication, and thus the impact of status differentials, resulting in greater equality of participation (e.g. Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). Turoff & Hiltz (1983) maintain that EIES computer conferences, which support the idea of anonymous contribution, have been successful in reducing common biases toward age, ethnicity, physical image, political status, sex and social class. It would follow that CMC ought to improve the environment for `effective' learning by minimising the debilitating status differential effect.

Finally Hsu (1990), using CMC for on-line simulation teaching, found that, in comparing simulation techniques in face-to-face scenarios, CMC supported groups resulted in higher levels of group cohesion and a higher overall performance level. Kaye (1992), however, reports that Galegher & Kraut (1989) found that in a learning task among MBA students to draft a consultancy report, there were no significant differences between CMC supported groups and groups who collaborated through face-to-face meetings. He maintains that 'conferencing may be best suited to relatively unambiguous information and learning exchanges' and, he cites, is often inappropriate as a communication medium for exchanges requiring subtlety, nuance, or tactful negotiation (Sproull & Kiesler 1991).

On the other hand, EIES developers are satisfied that achieving consensus and joint preparation of working group reports are facilitated by computer conferencing (Kaye, 1985). Turoff & Hiltz (1983) maintain that successful consensus has been facilitated by (a) the election of a leader; (b) the continued suggestion of compromises; (c) leadership attempts at getting the group's ideas and focuses together; and (d) a pushing towards research-based decisions. While these are valuable guidelines for effective collaborative learning, they nevertheless are equally applicable to face-to-face learning situations as they are to CMC. However, be that as it may, the point remains that once the well established collaborative learning guidelines are applied to CMC, CMC can indeed support `effective' learning to the point that it exceeds traditional face-to-face methods.

To finish this part of our discussion, we will consider possible constraints on the use of technique in question. Beckwith (1987, at p. 98) has identified at least two instances where CMC supported learning may not work.

Firstly, almost invariably the act of calling in an expert to proffer the 'right' answer to a discussion which might be taking place in CMC has a stultifying effect on the open, democratic in group problem-solving activity. Naturally, this has a negative impact on the learning process of the group in that it creates a false sense of closure and deadens interactivity. Beckwith counters this problem through the use of anonymity in the group discussion. This is a clear example where the technology of CMC has obvious advantages over traditional methods of collaborative learning.

Secondly, Beckwith makes the point that unless the structures of collaborative learning are explicitly stated and observed within CMC, productivity of group work can fall well below the productivity levels of more traditional learning environments. However, he adds that in our attempts to create social and organisational structures to support group problem solving, we tighten the rules and thereby inhibit productive communication rather than increase it. Beckwith suggests that the limited structures that CMC supports should be technically expanded to the point where users will be able to create their own appropriate structures. No computer conference is suitable for all situations (Sprigg, 1986). Beckwith maintains that what is needed for effective group problem-solving activity within CMC, is a 'structured storage of comments that reflects how, from each user's viewpoint, the comments relate to each other.'

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Design examples of collaborative learning on the Web

The above research allows us to accept that CMC does in fact support collaborative learning but only in learning situations for which CMC is particularly suited. For more advanced and complex collaborative learning as takes place in tertiary education, a computer supported communication system with more advanced features is required. These features are to be based upon a sound understanding of the principles of collaborative learning and the presentation of information to learners in a group. While it is sometimes helpful to discuss what we can do from the stand-point of the technology presently available (i.e. a discussion of the possible uses of the features of the latest version of Netscape), we find it more useful to allow theory to drive the design specifications of the communication technology and then assess whether or not the present technology meets our requirements. Or as the Dearing Report (1997) echoed;

"We have, however, sought to ensure that our recommendations are led by educational imperative and not be technology."

There are numerous design features which could be exploited by CMC to support collaborative learning. Here we present only a sample of the possible design features which ought to be present in CMC applications so that collaborative learning is supported:

1. On-line editing - users ought to be able to actively interact with the group's collective knowledge by being allowed to easily modify any information that occurs within the group. Such a feature would facilitate elaboration, emphasis, rearrangement and re-communication, all vital aspects of active and thus `effective' learning.

2. Anonymity - so that status differential can be minimised.

3. Scope for innovation - learners require the freedom to rearrange the method by which they present information and thus knowledge to one another. Such rearrangement ought not to be technically difficult so as to act as disincentive to such activity.

4. Group Processing - the environment must support explicit and dynamic group processing activities which are vital to the productivity of the group.

5. On-line Information Access - learners ought to be able to easily contribute to research-based discussions be having easy access to information on-line.

It appears from the above design brief that the technical requirements for successful collaborative learning, subject to the successful implementation of collaborative learning design, can be easily met by the Web. Yet there is a dearth of empirical research that sets out to examine whether or not the Web actually supports Collaborative Learning. Fowell & Levy (1995), in their application of all Web technologies (hypertext, search engines, multi-user dimensions (MUDs) and newsgroups), found that generally speaking, these technologies did have a positive effect on learning but were unable to identify the aspects of the technology which most supported learning. It seems that no empirical research has been carried out to date on the impact of the Web on `effective' learning in tertiary education, in this it is not unusual as there is limited research undertaken of teaching and learning in higher education.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

The Web and Legal Education

The Law Courseware Consortium has provided a co-ordinated approach to the development of courseware materials for use in legal education and has established an authoring environment called IOLIS in which further developments may take place. Each piece of courseware consists of an electronic workbook, a notepad and a resource book containing in electronic form primarily legal materials dealt with in the workbook. The courseware makes use of hypertext facilities both within the workbook area and within the resource book. Within the workbook it is possible to jump to other pages and to open pop up pages. Hypertext links make it possible to jump from the workbook to the resource book. From there, it is possible to search topics of choice via an index or a key word search (Widdison, 1995; Moodie, 1997) The IOLIS system at present allows for a system of electronic `post-its' that could be the basis for the development of collaborative learning environments that will facilitate more effective learning. The introduction of a Web based IOLIS system, WEBOLIS, expands the opportunities for collaboration as well as providing access to significant legal amounts of material on the Web. It may be that IOLIS is not the correct vehicle for such developments, IOLIS was designed essentially to support single user activity (Moodie, 1997) and as such should not be expected to meet the requirements for collaborative learning. We have argued elsewhere (Jones and Scully, 1996) that significant changes in the IOLIS structure would be needed to facilitate more effective use of the hypertext facilities. Changes of a similar scale would be needed to allow effective collaborative learning should IOLIS wish to develop its embryonic collaborative functions, a Web based IOLIS would certainly benefit from such functionality. Such developments may be possible within the `home grown' IOLIS system, a system authored by the Law Courseware Consortium, should that direction be deemed appropriate by the Consortium. On a theoretical level, any systems used in legal education that are based on the Web, need thoughtful application in order that they can function successfully as a medium for collaborative learning (Widdison & Schulte, 1998). This application, in our opinion, ought to reflect the successful work being carried out by Wan & Johnson (1995) and their 'CLARE' software being developed in support of Collaborative learning, and Scully's 'Cortex', (Jones & Scully, 1996) both of which provide mechanisms for constructive, active learning with the ability to communicate successfully within a working group. The principles of effective collaborative learning must be explicitly woven into the software design and manipulation process for on-line learning. Otherwise, the project of teaching and learning on the Web is technologically driven which can only yield `hit-and-hope' outcomes for on-line learning via the Web.

Implementation of such systems requires that the system on the Web fits well into the pedagogical system already in place. CSCL does not operate within an ivory tower. It does, and must, operate within a curriculum. Merely slotting a well-designed on-line component into the existing course does not ensure success. The powerful influence of prevailing assessment techniques in operation in higher level education will always mitigate against the success of these on-line environments as they will always invoke `hidden curriculum' tendencies amongst students (Synder, 1972). It is to be regretted that a bid by the Law Courseware Consortium for stage 3 funding for implementation of IOLIS within law school curricula has been rejected. This is particularly disappointing given the significant changes in legal education that are being mooted following the ACLEC report on legal education. Decreasing the amount of `law' to be learnt and encouraging a move to non-doctrinal law teaching may leave IOLIS and other such subject based systems wrong footed and unable to cope with radical changes predicted with higher education in the post `Dearing' market.

Top | Contents

Bibliography

ACLEC - 'Review of Legal Education - A Consultation Paper' Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct at: <http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk/ncle/html/aclec1.html>
Alavi M., (1995a) 'Using Information Technology to Re-engineer Business Education: An Explanatory Investigation of Collaborative Tele-Learning' (September 1995) MIS Quarterly p. 293.
Alavi, M et al (1995b) 'Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation' in (June 1994) MIS Quarterly p. 159.
Beckwith, D (1987) 'Group Problem-Solving via Computer Conferencing: The Realisable Potential' in (1987) 16(2) CJEC (1987) p 89.
Bradney, A (1995) 'Raising the Drawbridge: Defending University Law Schools' [1995] 1 Web JCLI at: <http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles1/content1.html>.
Damon (1985) 'Peer Education: The Untapped Potential' (1985) Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology p. 331.
Dearing, Sir R, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) at: <http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/>.
Deutsch, MA, (1949) 'A Theory of Co-operation and Competition' in (1949) 2 Human Relations p. 129.
Fowell, S & Levy, B (1995) 'Computer Mediated Communication in the Information Curriculum: An Initiative in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.' in (1995) 13 Education for Education p. 193.
Graddol, D (1989) 'Some CMC Discourse Properties and their educational significance' in Mason R. & Kaye A. (eds) Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distant Education (Oxford:Pergamon Press).
Hiltz, SR (1986) 'The Virtual Classroom: Using Computer Mediated Communication for University Teaching' (Spring 1986) Journal of Communication p. 1.
Hiltz, SR (1990) 'Evaluating the Virtual Classroom', in Harazim (ed) On-line Education; Perspectives on a new environment. (New York: Praeger)
Hsu, E (1990) 'Running a management games in a CMC system, a case of collaborative learning.' (1990) Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on CMC, May 15-17 at Guelph, Ontario p. 201.
Johnson, DW & Johnson FP (1991) Joining Together - Group Theory and Group Skills (4th Ed.) (New Jersey: Prentice Hall) p.107.
Jones, R (1994) 'Computer-managed Teaching and Learning in Law.' (1994) 8 International Yearbook of Law Computers and Technology p. 173.
Jones, R & Scully, J (1996) 'Hypertext within legal education', (1996) 2 Journal of Information Law and Technology at: <http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/elj/jilt/CAL/2Jones/default.htm>.
Kaye (1992) 'Learning On-line: A Review of Typical Applications', (1992) OET Module 1. p. 7.
Kiesler, S & Sproull, L (1992) 'Group decision making and communication technologies.' (1992) 52 Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Process p. 96.
Laurillard, D (1984) `Learning from Problem Solving', in Marton, Hounsell and Entwistle (Eds) The Experience of Learning (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press).
Laurillard, D (1994) Rethinking University Teaching, (London: Routledge).
Laurillard, D (1997) 'Recommendations of the National Committee, in IT and Dearing, Implications for HE.' (1997) CTI Colloquium Proceedings.
Mason, R & Kaye, A (1989) Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distant Education. (Oxford: Pergamon Press).
McDonnell, TM (1990) 'Joining Hands and Smarts: Teaching Manual Legal Research Through Collaborative Learning Groups' (1990) Journal of Legal Education p. 363.
Moodie, P (1997) 'Law Courseware and Iolis: Assessing the Present and Constructing the Future' (1997) 1 The Journal of Information, Law and Technology at:<http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/cal/97_1mood/>.
Oliver, D (1994) 'Teaching and Learning Law: The Pressure on the Liberal Law Degree' in (1994) Reviewing Legal Education (Oxford University Press: New York).
Piaget (1965) The Moral Judgements of the Child, (New York: Free Press).
Ramsden, P (1988) 'Context and Strategy: Situational Influences on Learning', in Schmeck, RR (Ed.), Learning Styles and Learning Strategies, (London: Plenum Press).
Ramsden, P (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education , (London: Routledge).
Scully, J The Bridge Between Information and Knowledge, unpublished M.Phil thesis.
Shuell, J (1986) 'Cognitive Conceptions of Learning' (Winter 1986) Review of Educational Research p. 411.
Spears, R & Lea, M (1994) 'Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power of CMC' in (1994) 21(4) Communication Research p. 427.
Sprigg, B (1986) 'Information Overload' (1986) 2(2) ENA Netweaver p.10.
Sullivan, H.S. (1953) The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry, (New York:Norton).
Synder, BR (1971) The Hidden Curriculum , (New York: Knopf).
Tomlinson, H & Henderson, W (1995) 'Computer Supported Collaborative Learning in schools: a distributed approach' in (1995) 26(2) British Journal of Educational Technology p.131.
Turoff, M & Hiltz, PT (1983) 'Feature Review: Murray Turoff and Ptavo Rosanne Hiltz on Electronic Publishing and people.' (1983) PSEVI, p. 8.
Wan, D & Johnson, PM (1994) 'Experiences with CLARE: a computer-supported collaborative learning environment' in (1994) International Journal for Human-Computer Studies p. 851.
Widdison, R (1995) 'Law Courseware: Big Bang or Damp Squib?' [1995] 4 Web Journal of Current Legal Issues at: <http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles4/widdis4.html>.
Widdison, R & Schulte, R (1998) 'Quarts into Pint Pots? Electronic Law Tutorials Revisited' (1998) 1 Journal of Information Law and Technology at: <http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/cal/98_1widd/default.htm>.
Yankovitch, N et al (1988) 'Intermedia: the concept and construction of a seamless information environment.' (1988) 21 Computer p. 81.