From student to trainee practitioner – a study of team working as a learning experience.

Karen Barton

Senior Lecturer in Legal Practice
Glasgow Graduate School of Law

Karen.barton@strath.ac.uk

and

Fiona Westwood

Senior Lecturer in Legal Practice
Glasgow Graduate School of Law 

Fiona.westwood@strath.ac.uk 

Copyright © Karen Barton and Fiona Westwood 2006
First published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues

---

Summary

At Glasgow Graduate School of Law (GGSL), we deliver the one year long Diploma in Legal Practice. Its stated aim is to equip students with the basic skills and knowledge required for legal practice. As a result, in addition to core modules including Conveyancing, Private Client and Accountancy, we ask our students to work in a virtual environment on client projects in assigned teams. 

This study investigates the learning experience offered by this team working through analysis of our students’ self-reflective reports and the development of a learning/trust matrix. The results identify the characteristics of positive and negative learning experiences and provide important information about how to support students to maximise their learning and shift them from student to trainee practitioner. 

---

Contents

---

Introduction

For most undergraduate courses, success is the result of individual effort, often focussing on the abstract conceptionalising quadrant of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (Kolb 1984).

“The fact is a law school graduate on the day he or she picks up the sheepskin, is like a learner driver who has studied everything about the science of driving but has never driven a car. In both cases, the heart of the matter lies not in abstract knowledge but in the sharpening of innate talents by experience.”(McCormack 1987, p11)

To be successful in practice, at the micro level, lawyers require to develop pragmatic learning (Kolb 1994) that involves the application of abstract knowledge to real life problems.

“Development of personal transferable skills that are required for the professions include integration of theoretical and practical knowledge, communication skills, reflection on one’s own knowledge and management of self, others and information”(McLoughlin & Luca 2002 p572)

In addition, at the macro level, professional practice today requires the ability to be adaptable to the demands of an increasingly consumerised client base, use technology to tailor client focussed services and work in teams of technically skilled people with cross functional knowledge and skills (Westwood 2001, 2004).

Our primary aim therefore is to educate and prepare law graduates to become competent first year trainee solicitors through the practical application and practice of skills and knowledge and to develop within them an understanding of professionalism. We have set ourselves a difficult challenge: how do we help students sharpen their talents through experience within the confines of delivery in an academic environment with a high proportion of students who have no prior experience of legal practice?

Our approach has been to develop both an educational model and practical implementation of that model to support this philosophy of professional education. Our educational model is based on the concept of ‘transactional learning’; in essence, a form of experiential learning where, in this context, the legal transaction itself is the key and the team learns and develops together through following the experiential learning cycle.  

The main characteristics of transactional learning (Maharg 2004) are that it:

• Involves active learning;
• Is based on doing legal transactions;
• Involves reflection on learning;
• Is based on collaborative learning;
• Requires holistic or process learning. 

It therefore focuses on pragmatic learning and developing what Biggs (2002, p40) refers to as functioning knowledge. The practical implementation of this model is an on-line virtual environment where the students work in legal firms on transactional client projects. As we inform students during their Foundation Course in Legal Skills, this enables them to practice, in a safe environment, what they will soon be practising with real clients and in live legal transactions.

This virtual environment allows students to experience and learn from their mistakes without any professional risk to themselves or their clients. More importantly for the purpose of this article, in an educational perspective, it is also vital that it is safe in the sense that they are able to work together in a supportive and secure learning environment: a realization of Schon’s “reflective practicum”,(indent) “… a virtual world, relatively free of the pressures, distractions and risks of the real one, to which, nevertheless, it refers” (Schon 1987, p37).(endent)

How do we achieve a “reflective practicum” at GGSL?

Argyris & Schon (1974, p149) state that:

“…the job of professional education consists not only of teaching technique but in teaching methods by which behavioural worlds in which techniques can work can be created.”

Our Transactional Learning Environment (TLE) has therefore been constructed to simulate legal transactions within an authentic learning setting. It consists of a fictional ‘virtual town’ of Ardcalloch. The town is represented by a navigable map, online directory and associated websites of several hundred institutions, businesses and virtual student law firms. 

Each transaction takes place within the context of a ‘firm’ of four students working together under the guidance of a practice manager: in reality a practising lawyer who is also a tutor on the course. Each firm practices within the virtual community of Ardcalloch using their firm’s ‘intranet’ containing shared practice management tools such as diaries, correspondence files, notes to file and notice boards which effectively integrates these transactions together into the year’s caseload for the virtual firm. Within the firm environment we also provide a private area for each student containing an activity log where they record their individual contribution to each transaction, and a personal log where they are encouraged to reflect on their learning in a more structured way. The TLE is therefore integrated within and around the curriculum and becomes the core element of the course for the students where learning is integrated with practice. This authentic immersion allows us to shift students from merely learning process, procedures and facts to learning, through first hand experience and reflection, professional capabilities, skills and values.

For many students this leap from traditional university, academic learning to experiential learning and collaborative working within the TLE is a daunting prospect, as these quotes from students’ reflective reports illustrate

• “Firms? Computers?  Collaboration?  Three words guaranteed to strike torpor into the heart of the average mature student”
• “A feeling of dread crept over me when I realised that much of the work for the Diploma was to be carried out in firms”
• “I struggled with the fact that I didn’t have total control over where, when and how I worked”
• “I don’t think that I’ve ever been quite so scared in my life.  ……Imagine my shock at discovering that I’d be part of a firm and that I’d be potentially responsible not only for my own failure but that of three others.  I almost left”
• “Four strangers, four projects, one team?”

At undergraduate level, our students have been rewarded as a result of their individual efforts, working in way that suited them and their preferred style of learning. They will have had little formal assessment based on team working. As a result, many are resistant to the concept of teams and this influences their attitude and approach towards the TLE and working in firms. 

We know from experience that some firms work better than others; we know that some have a painful experience. As a result, we want to reflect on how well we do what we set out to do (i.e. provide a safe learning environment); understand why some firms are more effective than others; and try to identify ways in which we can support experiential learning in firms more effectively.

Methodology

A phenomonographic approach was adopted to investigate the learning experiences of our students working in their ‘virtual firms’. Phenomenography is a research specialisation developed in the early 1970s by Ference Marton and his research group at the Department of Education at the University of Göteborg in Sweden. Its empirical base derives from discovery rather than hypothesis testing, using qualitative rather than quantitative data and produces descriptions rather than explanations. It is essentially an approach to research, the outcome of which is a description, or map, of the qualitative variation in the ways a group of people experience a phenomenon (for a fuller description of this methodology see, for example, Trigwell (2000)).

Our data consisted of approximately 250 (56 firms) Reflective Reports prepared as an assessed piece of work for one of our Diploma subjects, Practice Management. Each student is asked to focus on two of the projects, and bear in mind the following issues in their report:

Secondary research was carried out into learning organisations and team working. This allowed us to identify 20 characteristics that appeared to facilitate or inhibit learning. Using these criteria, we reviewed a random sample of these Reports to attempt to group firms into ‘successful’ and ‘not so successful’ categories. We found that this was too detailed an approach and the granularity camouflaged the overall picture. 

What was evident, however, was that the most successful firms were those that were able to learn together from experience. In these firms, members exhibited commitment to the firm itself, were able to talk openly with each other about their experiences of working together, think critically about their work, take action and adapt to new situations. Successful firms therefore experienced, reflected, conceptualised and acted together; following the experiential learning model that underpins the course design. The interesting question was, though, why were some firms apparently much better at this than others? The main characteristic that appeared to influence this was the degree of trust within the firm. We define trust in this sense as a belief that the members of the firm are individually valued, can rely on one another, and do not feel vulnerable to ridicule or embarrassment. This view of trust may be considered akin to Edmondson’s (1999, p4) definition of team psychological safety describing “…a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable with themselves”. This is similar to the definition of trust provided by Ward & Smith (2003, p8) that “to trust is to rely on someone or something to take care of our interests” and reflects the co-dependency that exists as, within their virtual firm, our students are assessed on their team performance.

As a result, we chose to concentrate on looking for evidence of trust and/or learning. We could see that there was some kind of relationship between the two, albeit that some firms were apparently learning where trust was absent. 

We developed a Matrix that allowed us to seek to categorise firms. This mapping led to 4 ‘types’ of firms –

• Type 1 - Learning Communities that displayed high trust and high learning
• Type 2 - Legal Eagles that displayed low trust and high learning
• Type 3 - Friendly Societies that displayed high trust and low learning
• Type 4 - Dysfunctional that displayed low trust and low learning. 

We analysed each Report independently and then discussed our choice of category for each firm, defending our choice based on what the student had actually written. This debate and any subsequent adjustment of allocation allowed us to identify characteristics of each of the 4 groups. On five occasions, individual students within the firm appeared to have markedly different experiences with the result that these firms were split between Types.

The results of our analysis of the 51 remaining firms are as follows:

• Type 1 - 41%
• Type 2 - 20%
• Type 3 - 27%
• Type 4 - 12%

Analysis

Our analysis allowed us to determine the characteristics of each type of firm. These we split into four separate headings of their culture, their approach to tackling tasks, their internal relationships and their work styles. 

1 Characteristics of learning communities (High trust, high learning)

Their culture was inclusive and fair. They were willing to rely on each other putting the aims of their team first, rather than any personal agenda or gain. When differences were aired, they looked for a win-win result. They were task focussed, with a strong commitment to getting the job done. They operated in an open and honest way, respecting each other’s strengths and supporting weaknesses, sharing responsibility for mistakes and problems. Their work styles varied and adapted to suit the circumstances. They learned from mistakes, sought consensus at all times and as a result, were responsive and resilient. 

One of the most significant features of this group is that they formed quickly as a group, recognising the value of working collectively. They regarded the TLE as ‘real’, engaging completely with the projects. They communicated openly and effectively, developing high levels of trust in each other. They were adaptable and, as a result, achieved high learning through experience together. 

2 Characteristics of the Legal eagles (Low trust, high learning)

Their culture was one of the individual rather than the team. They were suspicious of each other, and preferred to put their own interests first. Although they were similar to Type 1 in that they did engage in the task, they argued with each other over details preferring to tackle projects their way rather than accommodate other people’s approach. As a result, they spent a disproportionate amount of time and energy on group work. Their relationships were abrasive and argumentative with limited listening. They were inflexible and suspicious of anything new. They sought to score points off each other rather than seek to move the team forward.

This group were reluctant to work together from the start and were doubtful of each other’s abilities. They preferred to continue the approach they had adopted as undergraduates. However, they were task focussed and wanted to succeed. As a result, with trust low, they ‘battled’ their way through their learning, often exhausting themselves in the process. They achieved high individual learning through experience.

3 Characteristics of friendly societies (High trust, low learning)

Their culture was inclusive and comfortable. They preferred to put friendship first over and above tackling their firm’s projects. They did not see these as significant or important. They were like-minded and sociable, spending companionable time together rather than getting on with their tasks. As a result, their approach was superficial and comfortable, avoiding any conflict or disagreement. 

This group formed quickly by becoming friends. A significant feature was their limited engagement with the TLE and the projects. They prioritised their social interaction at the expense of tackling tasks. As a result, whilst their trust was high their learning was limited. They did not engage in the experiential learning cycle either as a team or as individuals.

4 Characteristics of dysfunctional (Low trust, low learning)

This group operated a culture of suspicion and blame, seeking their own agenda at all times with no recognition of the need to work as firm. They had low engagement (if any) with their group tasks, seeing team projects as silly and pointless. Their inter-firm relationships were abrasive and self-seeking, with no awareness of the impact of their behaviour on other firm members. When mistakes occurred, they abdicated responsibility seeking to polarise discussion and blame others. They were demanding, ego centred and inflexible. 

This group did not benefit at all from the TLE or team working. Like the Friendly Societies, they did not engage with the environment or the process. However, they were resistant to working together from an early stage and as a result, did not develop any understanding of each other. Both trust and learning were absent. They did not engage in the experiential learning cycle either as a team or as individuals.

Given the experiential basis of our methodology, we have summarised the characteristics in the Learning/Trust Matrix and highlighted those determining characteristics by including some illustrative student quotes (Figure 1).

 

Learning
Type 2: Legal Eagles Low Trust High Learning Culture Suspicious, blame , independence, me first, team second Task Task focussed: debate about details, my way; high engagement, exhausting Relationships: Insular, abrasive, reluctant, limited listening, suspicious Work Styles: Inflexible, rigid, majority, one upmanship Illustrative Student Quotes "I have learned that some things which seem irrelevant to some members of the group can cause problems if they are very important to other members of the team." "I felt exhausted and as though I was constantly trying to prove my commitment to the firm."		Type 1: Learning Community High Trust High Learning Culture Inclusive, fair, interdependence, team first, win-win Task Task focussed; our way, high engagement to get things done, good communications Relationships: Open, value each other, mutually supportive, honest, shared responsibility, respect Work Styles: Flexible, adaptive, lerarn from mistakes, consensus, responsive, resilient Illustrative Student Quotes "the great thing about the firm was that I felt that we all picked up on these weaknesses early on without any conflicts arising" "doesn't mean our differences have to separate us ... that is precisley what makes us work much better together as a team."
			Trust
Type 4: Dysfunctional Low Trust Low Learning Cluture Suspicious, blame, me first, firm nowhere Task Not task focussed; low engagement Relationships Blame, victimisation, polarised, abrasive, no self-awareness Work Styles Inflexible, superficial, dictatorial, rigid Illustrative Student Quotes "not my place to act as social worker to my team members" "Teamwork jarring is insoluble - some people are just destined not to work together." "... childlike tantrums ... turned into a nightmare"		Type 3: Friendly Societies High Trust Low Learning Culture Inclusive, cosy, dependence, friends first, firm second Task Not task focussed, low engagement Relationships Like minded, sociable, nice, supportive Work Styles Superficial, majority, avoid conflict Illustrative Student Quotes "... my experience has not taught me anything about how to deal with conlict situations or how to get on with people I would not ordinarily be friends with." "I found sometimes that I held back slightly in my opinion ... I did not want to 'rock the boat'."
Figure 1. Learning /Trust Matrix

Other factors?

One of the factors we examined was the effect the composition of the firm might have on success. Although we are aware of the work that Belbin (2002) and others have carried out on the formation of effective teams, historically our students are randomly allocated into firms. This is partly based on our own previous experience of allowing firms to self-select, which proved to be problematic and unsatisfactory. Others have reported similar experiences, for example, Hall (1996) notes difficulties with teams that self-select on the basis of friendship and advocates random team assignment on the basis that personality clashes and disagreement leads to more profound learning. 

We did consider existing human resource management theories as they relate to developing professional teams.  However, whilst the team dynamic of inter-relationships of personal characteristics is well established (e.g. Belbin 2002), it is also accepted that professionals are not easy to manage (Mintzberg 1979; Quinn et al 1996; Westwood 2001, 2004).  By definition, professionals have been trained to be independent in their approach to client work (e.g. Torstendahl 1990) with the result that to manage them requires their consent rather than the adoption of any formal HR processes (Goffee & Scase 1995; Maister 1997). 

Given the emphasis on experiential learning within the context of the firm, we considered whether individual learning styles might influence firm performance, and if such a concept as a ‘team’ learning style might have a bearing on the success of a firm. Previous studies into the effect of learning styles on team performance provide some interesting results (e.g. Halstead and Martin 2002). In all of these studies, those groups or teams whose members had diverse learning styles (heterogeneous teams) performed better or were more successful than teams with similar or specialized learning styles (homogeneous teams). While we do not select firms on the basis of their preferred learning styles, we were aware that successful firms often referred to each other’s ‘strengths and weaknesses’. This indicated, not so much that the existence of a skills or learning styles mix were important, but that those firms where these differences were recognized, valued and used effectively were inevitably more successful.

The demographic characteristics of the firms were also considered. We noted that all firms (4 in total) where the gender profile was 3 male: 1 female were Type 1. Firms of 3 (4 in total) were generally less successful than other types of firm. Although our data set is limited, these are nevertheless interesting results which merit further study outwith the scope of this paper. 

What this tells us so far

The results of our analysis offer a number of important observations. First of all, it is re-assuring to determine that most firms and students (Types 1 and 2) learn or have a positive experience (Types 1 and 3). The numbers of firms in the High Learning quadrants reflect this albeit the Legal Eagles find it more tiring. The Friendly Societies enjoy the group experience, so much so that they are often unaware that their learning is restricted. 

Secondly, our current support mechanisms appear to be sufficient for most situations. The log activity supported by regular meetings with their Practice Managers allows students to draw attention to particular problems.

Thirdly, task focus is crucial for learning. In addition, engagement with the environment is essential. Interestingly given the parameters of our Matrix, trust is important but not necessary for learning, at least at the individual level.

In summary:

• Most firms learn or have a positive experience
• Task focus is crucial for learning
• Trust is important but not necessary for learning
• Engagement with environment is essential for learning
• Firms who engage fully with experiential learning are most successful
• Current support mechanisms are sufficient for most situation.

The characteristic of Type 1 confirms Schon’s view that it is “through the medium of the group that a student can immerse himself in the world of the practicum. …learning new habits of thought and action” (1987 p38). They quickly develop a high amount of “social capital” (Cohen & Prusack 2001) that includes trust, mutual understanding and shared values (cf. Ward & Smith 2003). Their openness and honesty highlights that candour is “at the heart of most successful collaborative relationships.” (Schrage 1995 p35). This allows them to disagree and debate in a way that builds their relationship. 

Whilst it is accepted that creative tension is important (Leonard & Swap 1999), Type 2 concentrate on “interpersonal abrasion – the clash of people” (Leonard & Swap 1999 p50). This results in talented people, focussed on conflict for conflict’s sake trapped in their thinking styles and failing to listen to others, confirming the self limiting approach of many professionals (Quinn et al 1996). This self-limitation inhibits learning and the development of trust. 

Type 3 choose to avoid conflict, and become a “chorus of monotones” (Leonard & Swap 1999, p20). Johnson & Johnson (1997, p254) describe this as “social loafing” where people are apprehensive of questioning others preferring to concentrate on developing socially as a group exhibiting “groupthink” characteristics (Janis 1972, 1982). They may trust each other but prefer friendship to learning. 

Type 4 operates in a vacuum of trust and understanding. This lack of trust inhibits any form of action, knowledge sharing and learning (Pfeffer & Sutton 2000, p118/133). They perceive differences between members of the group as re-inforcing their suspicions where “personal conflict or basic incompatibilities over interpersonal styles can poison a group” (Leonard & Swap 1999, p42). As a result, it becomes unsafe to discuss group issues (Ward & Smith 2003). Learning is therefore inhibited.   

What we have introduced for this year

As a result of our research, our overall aim for the coming year and our measure of success is to increase the number of firms that achieve Type 1 by using strategies to help the firms engage in the experiential learning cycle and work together to build trust.

“Cooperative learning typically produces higher achievement, more positive relationships and greater psychological health than does competitive or individualistic learning.” (Johnson & Johnson 1997, p6). 

As a result, we want to encourage the Legal Eagles to develop trust and the Friendly Societies to be ‘less friendly’ and treat their tasks more authentically. We hope to identify the Dysfunctional types more quickly by requiring all firms to sign up early on to working collectively and introduce additional feedback mechanisms. We feel that this can be achieved by increasing both the hard and soft support we provide to firms. 

First of all, we aim to increase students’ understanding of the characteristics of successful firms. We have therefore presented students with information about the four types of firms and required them to discuss these with their Practice Manager Tutors at the beginning of their Diploma course within the Foundation Course in Legal Skills. This was followed up by a facilitated group session where preferred learning styles, work patterns, concerns with working in the group and other commitments were discussed openly within the firm. This was designed to encourage them to work in a structured way on identifying their contribution and role within the firm and allow them to articulate concerns that may have remained hidden.

We introduced a formal written Partnership Agreement so that firms are required to consider the reality of collective responsibility and commitment to each other from the outset. This formality seeks to re-inforce their commitment to the firm and if firms failed to sign this Agreement, this flags up at an early stage that the firm is struggling to work together. 

As values are an important element of establishing trust (Parsons 1951; Lane & Bachmann 1998), we have therefore asked firms to identify a group of values that they have in common, as “one important influence on success of assimilation is a predisposition to those values and norms” (Cohen & Prusack 2001, p63). These have to be included in their formal Agreement.

Requiring the signing of a formal document re-inforces their commitment to their firm and agreeing core values will allow them to determine some commonality of approach. This confirms the establishment of deep commitment that encourages accountability and mutual responsibility (Christensen et al, 1991).

Once they started working together they have been asked to complete weekly Self and Peer Assessment Logs with the aim of encouraging them to reflect on their own and their colleague’s ongoing contribution to the firm. The value of self and peer assessment is widely acknowledged (e.g. Miller et al, 1998; Boud, 1995) and while it is being introduced for formative purposes only, we see several advantages in using the process more formally in this way. Firstly, it requires students to reflect more on their own work and contribution to the team effort, helping them to identify both personal and team strengths and weaknesses more easily. This should result in deeper learning for the students involved as they are required to think more carefully about what they have learned, make judgements about themselves and others and review their own progress. Secondly, it provides a feedback loop that may also result in opening up student-student and student-tutor dialogues where problems and concerns can be raised and discussed more openly. Finally, it will raise students’ awareness of the standards expected of them and each other.

In addition, the Practice Managers, whilst already experienced tutors, have been encouraged to increase their coaching skills. An overview of our research was presented to them and they are aware of our aim to increase the number of firms of Type 1. They have been provided with a book on coaching and participated in a coaching workshop.

Finally, we have introduced the option (within the terms of the Partnership Agreement) of formal mediation in the event that any firm is unable to resolve particular issues that may arise. Offering mediation with its inherent emphasis on facilitation rather than adjudication places the responsibility on firms finding their own solution rather than having one imposed upon them. 

We plan to evaluate the effectiveness of these new interventions through monitoring completion of Agreements and logs, and through our detailed analysis of the students’ Reflective Reports at the end of this Diploma course. 

Conclusion

Developing the skills of working in teams is an increasingly important part of legal education. These skills do not appear to be have been enhanced by students’ undergraduate experience. Accordingly vocational education must promote and augment them.

Assigning students randomly into teams offers the potential for an enhanced learning experience. However, to be successful in this team environment requires them to accept that other people have valuable skills and experience. It also requires them to listen, to adjust and learn. It requires them to learn to trust. Cope’s (1998 p43) elements of any long-term, trust-based relationship includes being truthful, being responsive, being constant, being loyal and being trained is confirmed in the characteristics of our ‘learning communities’.  

Trust in itself is not essential for learning. Trust merely facilitates and eases the path.  Similarly students who trust too easily may fail to learn by putting social relationships above the success of the team, while the absence of both trust and learning results in failure for both student and team. 

To indicated at the outset of this article, to be successful in practice, lawyers require the ability to be adaptable and innovative in their client service delivery, in other words build the “social capital” of Cohen & Prusack (2001, p4) that leads to initiative and collaboration. This consists of: -

“The stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding and shared values and behaviours that bind the members of human networks and connections and make co-operative action possible.”

Its elements include (paraphrasing Cohen & Prusack 2001 at page 4): -

1. high levels of trust
2. robust personal networks
3. vibrant communities
4. shared understandings and
5. a sense of equitable participation in a joint exercise

- “all things that develop individuals into a group”

As teachers in professional legal education we have a role to play in creating an ‘authentic environment’ where students feel safe to try out new skills and learn how to become lawyers. However, it is not enough to simply create the environment and leave the students to get on with it, learning through trial and error. We must first of all understand the underlying pedagogical models we adopt in order to ensure we provide the necessary support to help students engage with this form of learning. Above all, we must continue to monitor our students’ experiences and use this information to inform our own understandings and improve our practice.

Bibliography

Argyris, Chris & Schon, Donald A (1974) Theory in Practice – Increasing Professional Effectiveness (San Francisco: Jossey Bass)

Biggs, John (2002) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Buckingham: Open University Press)

Belbin R. Meredith (2002) Team Roles at Work (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann)

Boud, David (1995) Enhancing Learning Through Self-assessment (London: Kogan Page)

Christensen, C R, Garvin D A & Sweet A (1991) Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership (Boston: Harvard Business School Press)

Cohen, Don & Prusack, Laurence (2001) In Good Company – how social capital makes organizations work (Boston: Harvard Business School Press)

Cope, Mick (1998) Leading the Organisation to Learn (London: Financial Times Management)

Edmondson, Amy C (1999) Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), p350

Goffee R & Scase R (1995) Corporate Realities – the dynamics of large and small organizations (London: International Thomson Business Press)

Hall, J. (1996) ‘Training in teamwork for students of library and information studies’ Education for Information 14(1), pp 19-30

Halstead, A. & Martin, L. (2002) ‘Learning Styles: A tool for selecting students for group work’ International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39(3), pp 245-252

Janis, I (1972) ‘Groupthink’ Psychology Today 43-46, pp 74 -76

Janis, I (1982) Groupthink (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin)

Johnson, D W & Johnson, F P (1997) Joining Together: Group theory and group skills 6^th Ed. (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon)

Kolb, David A (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall)

Kolb, David A (1994) ‘Learning styles and disciplinary differences’ in Feldman K A & Paulsen M B (eds) Teaching and Learning in the college classroom, pp 151 -164 (Needham Heights, Ma.:Ginn Press)

Lane, Christel & Bachmann, Reinhard (1998) Trust within and between organisations (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Leonard, Dorothy & Swap, Walter (1999) When Sparks Fly – igniting creativity in groups (Boston: Harvard Business School Press)

McCormack, Mark H (1987) The Terrible Truth about Lawyers: what every businessman needs to know (London: Collins)

McLoughlin, Catherine & Luca, Joe (2002) ‘The learner-centred approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessment’ British Journal of Educational Technology Volume 33, Number 5 pp 571 -582

Maister, David (1997) True Professionalism – the courage to care about your people, your clients and your career (New York: The Free Press)

Maharg, P (2004) Authenticity in Learning: Transactional Learning in Virtual Communities Cyberlaws Conference Paper

Miller, Allen H, Imrie, Bradford W & Cox, Kevin (1998) Student Assessment in Higher Education: A Handbook for Assessing Performance (London: Kogan Page)

Mintzberg, Henry (1979) The Structuring of Organisations - A Synthesis of the Research (London: Prentice Hall)

Parsons T (1951) The Social System (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul)

Pfeffer, J & Sutton, R I (2000) The Knowing Doing Gap: how smart companies turn knowledge into action (Boston: Harvard Business School Press)

Quinn, James, Brian, Anderson, Philip & Finkelstein, Sydney (1996) ‘Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best’ Harvard Business Review March – April p71

Schon, D (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner (California: Jossey Bass)

Schrage, Michael (1989) No More Teams – mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration (New York: Currency Doubleday)

Torstendahl R (1990) ‘Promotion and Strategies of knowledge based groups’ in Torstendahl R & Burrage M (eds) The Formation of the Professions - Knowledge State and Strategy (London: Sage Publications)

Trigwell, K (2000) ‘Phenomenography: Variation and Discernment’ in Rust C (ed) Improving Student Learning, Proceedings of the 1999 7^th International Symposium (Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development) pp 75-85

Ward, Adrian & Smith, John (2003) Trust and mistrust – radical risk strategies in business relationships (Chichester: Wiley)

Westwood, F (2001) Achieving Best Practice – Shaping Professionals for Success (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill)

Westwood, F (2004) Accelerated Best Practice – Implementing Success in Professional Firms (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan)