FACULTY OF LAWS
Module Unit Report Form
Title & Code of Course Unit
LAWS3014: Public International Law
Course Unit
1.0
Year
2013/14
Course Convenor
Douglas Guilfoyle
Number Enrolled on Course
52
Average Mark Gained
64.3
Standard Deviation
5.1
Minimum Mark
50
Maximum Mark
78
Median
65.0
Module Statistics
Number of
Students
Marks
Percentage
Number
80-100
0.0 %
0
70-79
15.4 %
8
60-69
69.2 %
36
50-59
13.5 %
7
40-49
0.0 %
0
35-39
0.0 %
0
30-34
0.0 %
0
20-29
0.0 %
0
0-19
0.0 %
0
Absent
0.0 %
0
Irregular
0.0 %
0
Not Completed
1.9 %
1
Withheld
0.0 %
0
A Course Organizer’s Report (quality of student work, pace and content, appropriateness of teaching methods and effects of any action(s)
taken to resolve past problems)
Student exam performance was up on the previous year, with a significantly higher proportion of firsts being awarded
(15% compared to 10%). No thirds were awarded which is particularly pleasing. I'm also pleased to note that there was a
much higher student survey response rate this year of almost 50%, much better than the approximately 25% rate of
survey responses last year. While I would prefer the figure to be higher I'm pleased with the improvement.
The headline improvement for the course is that 72% of students felt the criteria used for marking assessment were clear
and made available in advance. This compares with only 24% of students agreeing with that statement in the previous
session. I put this down to the assessment exercise and now conducting revision classes. In these I use sample answers
from past exam papers and have students grade them as first, 2.1 or 2.2 and explain to me what is different about them.
This appears to have been enormously successful. I now in the same revision class circulate a document on which
students can record their written permission for random samples to be taken anonymously from their exam papers for
future use in such exercises.
There was slightly lower satisfaction this year than the previous year that the classes proceeded in a logical order (65%
compared to approximately 75%.) This would appear to be seasonal variation as there was no appreciable difference in
the order in which the material was taught. Improved satisfaction with overall workload is noted below.
B Any Learning Resources problems (e.g quality of lecture or tutorial rooms)
None identified.
C Issues Identified by Students (from questionnaires, staff-student committee etc.) and Action Taken or Planned
The following points stand out from the student survey results:
 Generally the course aims with thought clear and students seem happy that they were met. This is consistent with
last years results.
 Once again, the number of students thinking that the starting point for the course is too high is about 25%. This is
comparable to last year and better than historical highs that of ranged up 36%. However, we do seem stuck at this
figure. In response to this concern in the past we placed a session on theoretical approaches to international law
early in the course (in the hope that it would give students perspectives through which to understand the rest of
the material). However, it may be that this innovation should be reconsidered. By itself, it does not appear to have
had much impact either way.
 Students continue to find the pace of teaching too quick. This year that figure is about 40% - better than historical
highs of about 50%, but not quite as good as last year’s 33%. This may need consideration at a whole of course
level. There is a lot of material to cover in a public international law course and it is not immediately apparent what
could be dropped to reduce the pace.
 Paradoxically, only about 19% of students found the workload too much. This is an enormous improvement over
figures in the period 2009–12 when 36 to 50% of students thought the course too much work. I attributed this to
sustained efforts to create more uniform and structured reading lists that clearly indicate which material is to be
given priority. This is also reflected in the fact that a record 78% of students found the handouts and reading lists
useful.
 There has been a marked decline in satisfaction with the clarity of lecturing. Last year this was 82% and this year
it stands about 62%. This may correlate with some dissatisfaction with both my teaching and that of Dr Azaria (Dr
Trapp clearly being the star lecturer of the course). Satisfaction with my teaching was down slightly (to 75% of
students thinking I actively aided their learning) and satisfaction with Dr Azaria’s teaching was low with 53% of
students disagreeing with the statement that her teaching helped them understand the material. As a first step, Dr
Azaria and I have both agreed that we should observe Dr Trapp’s teaching this year in order to see what she's
doing right. I've also emphasised to Dr Azaria that some of the negative feedback on her teaching may follow from
her practice of not strictly following in her lecture the order of topics on her handout. She had taken the view –
perhaps more appropriate at an LLM level – that the handout was a guide which she would speak around rather
than literally following point by point.
D Issues Identified by Visiting Examiners and Action Taken or Planned
The visiting examiner has consistently suggested we mark slightly on the hard side. I would take the general upward shift
in exam results to show we have taken that criticism entirely on board in our marking practices.
E Vice-Dean for Taught Programmes’ Comments and Action Taken or Planned