MODULE SPECIFICATION COVER SHEET
1.
Title of the module
LW640 Critical Legal Reasoning
2.
School or partner institution which will be responsible for management of the module
Kent Law School
3.
The level of the module (e.g. Level 4, Level 5, Level 6 or Level 7)
Level 6
4.
The number of credits and the ECTS value which the module represents
15 credits (7.5 ECTS)
5.
Which term(s) the module is to be taught in (or other teaching pattern)
Autumn
6.
Prerequisite and co-requisite modules
Pre-requisite modules
LW313 A Critical Introduction to Law; and
LW315 Introduction to Obligations; and
LW508 Criminal Law or; LW601 Advanced Level Criminal Law (on a co-requisite basis)
7.
The programmes of study to which the module contributes
All undergraduate law programmes
8.
The intended subject specific learning outcomes.
On successfully completing the module students will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
Demonstrate a coherent knowledge of the difference between argument and non-argument and to identify
valid and flawed arguments, both legal and non-legal.
Demonstrate a systematic understanding of different forms of reasoning, both legal and non-legal; in
particular to distinguish between and exemplify different forms of inferential reasoning, both legal and
non-legal.
Demonstrate a coherent knowledge of the distinctiveness of legal reasoning; in particular, demonstrate a
systematic understanding of the different forms of argument required by trial and appellate advocacy.
Demonstrate a coherent understanding of what is meant by critical thinking, its associated skills and the
obstacles that can hinder its effective development; in particular, understand and demonstrate the
function of effective critical thinking within and about legal reasoning in a variety of contexts using a
variety of techniques.
Perform one or more complex legal advocacy tasks; in particular, to construct a skeleton argument
intended for an appellate court on a complex legal issue and to orally deliver an argument on a complex
legal issue.
Demonstrate a coherent knowledge of the limits of logical and legal reasoning; in particular by evidencing
detailed knowledge of other factors influencing legal and other decision-making.
Reflect constructively on and evaluate their own learning processes.
The intended generic learning outcomes.
On successfully completing the module students will be able to:
MODULE SPECIFICATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Use general critical thinking skills in much wider legal and non-legal contexts.
Identify and use a wider variety of argumentative techniques across a broad range of subjects.
Understand the value of non-legal material in the construction of effective legal argumentation.
Undertake appropriate independent legal research with minimal supervision, using a variety of legal
sources and materials in order to formulate and apply legal argumentation to resolve given legal problem
situations.
Present legal argument both in seminars and through assessment.
Retrieve up to date information, using paper and electronic sources including effective use of IT and other
information retrieval systems; and systematically gather and evaluate relevant legal authority from a
variety of legal sources, in particular case law,
Use relevant and appropriate legal and non-legal terminology with care, accuracy and confidence.
10. A synopsis of the curriculum
A central question of this module is whether, and to what extent, there is anything distinctive about legal reasoning
compared to reasoning in general. That question is posed from the perspective of a legal practitioner, in
particular, an advocate. The aim of the module is to equip students – as potential advocates, but also in general
– with a range of tools and skills of argument that are easily transferrable across legal and non-legal contexts.
It is a premise of the module that any competent advocate, or indeed lawyer, must demonstrate a proficient
grounding in elementary logic. As such, the module will explore, and students will be expected to demonstrate,
the role played inferential logic within legal reasoning. The module will also consider logical and other fallacies.
For example, and drawing on Schauer, by asking whether authority-based reasoning (ie the doctrine of
precedent) is a fallacy; and, drawing on Kahneman, by investigating the role played by psychological heuristics
in all forms of decision-making including legal forms.
In addition to the conventional categories of inferential reasoning, the module will consider other forms of
reasoning including, but not limited to, practical, statistical, and marginal/economic forms. In the latter context,
and drawing on Farnsworth, it will consider the differences between ex post and ex ante forms of reasoning: the
first response being about cleaning up after things have gone wrong, and the second about the effects of
decisions in the future. The latter perspective leads naturally to a broader consideration of policy-based reasoning
in general.
Students will explore the role played by different forms of reasoning in different contexts; for example by
considering and demonstrating the use of logical deduction and probable inference in the context of legal proof
(evidence) and the role of other forms of reasoning, including rhetoric, in the formulation of legal arguments.
The theoretical background will provide the basis upon which students will learn to construct effective (legal)
arguments and to practice the skills learned in a variety of written and oral contexts ranging from skeleton
arguments, oral presentations, mock trials and/or applicationsand/or mooting (subject to availability). Students
will be expected to reflect critically on their learning practice by producing a self-reflective portfolio.
11. Reading List (Indicative list, current at time of publication. Reading lists will be published annually)
Cottrell, Stella, Critical Thinking Skills (2nd edn, Palgrave, 2011)
Farnsworth, Ward, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking about the Law (University of Chicago Press,
2007)
Hanson, Sharon, Learning Legal Skills and Reasoning (4th edn, Routledge, 2016)
Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Penguin, 2011)
Schauer, Frederick, Thinking Like a Lawyer: a new introduction to Legal Reasoning (Harvard, 2012)
Shaw, P, Logic and its Limits (2nd edn, OUP, 1997)
12. Learning and Teaching methods
2
Module Specification Template (September 2015)
MODULE SPECIFICATION
The module is allocated 150 hours of study (10 hours of lectures, 10 hours of seminars and 130 hours of
private study)
There will be one lecture per week during the Autumn Term (excluding reading and writing weeks). Some of
the lectures will be interactive. The lectures contribute to the module’s intended learning outcomes through
articulation and demonstration of the knowledge base and skills outlined above in sections 8 and 9, and are of
particular importance in light of the need for formal demonstration of these skills in the assessments.
A one-hour seminar is provided each week (excluding reading and writing weeks). Seminars are structured
with reference to Seminar Worksheets, distributed at the beginning of the term. Seminars will be designed to
enhance student understanding of both the law and the issues arising from the materials. They will provide
opportunity for students to undertake detailed discussion of the points raised in the seminar readings and in
the lectures, and/or will make space for students to practice some of the skills learned via oral presentation or
otherwise. Students will be pressed in seminars to present their thoughts clearly, justifying their positions
through use of the materials and techniques studied. A number of seminars will involve students taking sides
for a particular proposition in order to practice the skills of argument.
The purpose of private study is to read and engage with required reading and to prepare for smaller group
interactions and assessment; but most importantly to practice the various skills demonstrated as the main
themes of the course. Only through practice will the skills become second nature.
13. Assessment methods.
The module will be assessed by 100% coursework, consisting of a combination of:
a) Two written assessments of 1500 words each (25% each) AND
b) Oral presentation (25%) AND
c) Self-reflective portfolio of 1500 words (25%)
The first written assessment will relate to the one or more of the theoretical components of the module for
example the role of cognitive biases in judicial or other decision-making or an exploration of different forms of
reasoning. This written assessment will be due for submission before the skeleton argument. The rationale is
that students will then incorporate some of these theoretical or practical ideas and skills into their approaches
to the skeleton argument and oral presentations.
The second written assessment will be a skeleton argument. The topic of the skeleton argument may (within
reason) be chosen by the student or otherwise from a list compiled by the convenor. Students will take a first
instance or Court of Appeal judgment and will draft a skeleton argument on the grounds of appeal or response
thereto in relation to the same case. Students will be encouraged to work in opposing pairs and/or teams.
For the oral component of the assessment, students will have to present the arguments set out in their
skeleton arguments in more detail. Each student will have about 12-15 minutes to present their grounds of
appeal or response and will be assessed accordingly. They will have had sight of their opponents’ skeleton
argument in advance. They will be expected to deal with “judicial interventions”.
When available, and on obtaining prior consent from the Module Convenor, students will be given the
opportunity to participate in a moot on an assessed basis. Any mark awarded will replace the combined mark
awarded for the skeleton argument in 13(a) and the oral presentation in 13(b), if higher, but only if the student
has attained a pass mark for each of the two assessments.
14. Map of Module Learning Outcomes (sections 8 & 9) to Learning and Teaching Methods (section 12)
and methods of Assessment (section 13)
3
Module Specification Template (September 2015)
MODULE SPECIFICATION
Module learning outcome
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
Learning /
teaching
method
Hours
allocated
Lectures
10
X
X
X
X
Seminars
10
X
X
X
X
Private
Study
130
X
X
X
X
Assessme
nt method
Specify word
length, duration,
individual or
group work (as
appropriate)
Written
assessment
1500 words
X
X
X
X
X
Skeleton
argument
1500 words
X
X
X
X
X
Oral
presentation
Individual
(12-15
minutes)
X
X
X
Selfreflective
portfolio
1500 words
X
X
Assessed
moot
Individual
(but in team)
X
X
X
8.7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8.6
X
X
X
9.1
9.2
9.3
X
X
X
9.4
9.5
9.7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9.6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15. The School recognises and has embedded the expectations of current disability equality legislation, and
supports students with a declared disability or special educational need in its teaching. Within this
module we will make reasonable adjustments wherever necessary, including additional or substitute
materials, teaching modes or assessment methods for students who have declared and discussed their
learning support needs. Arrangements for students with declared disabilities will be made on an
individual basis, in consultation with the University’s disability/dyslexia student support service, and
specialist support will be provided where needed.
16. Campus(es) or Centre(s) where module will be delivered:
Canterbury
4
Module Specification Template (September 2015)
MODULE SPECIFICATION
FACULTIES SUPPORT OFFICE USE ONLY
Revision record – all revisions must be recorded in the grid and full details of the change retained in the
appropriate committee records.
Date approved
Major/minor
revision
Start date of the
delivery of revised
version
Section revised
5
Module Specification Template (September 2015)
Impacts PLOs
(Q6 & 7 cover sheet)