Annex 11
SCHEME FOR SEMINAR PARTICIPATION
Interim Report on the Oral Evaluation “Experiment” in LW 813
To: KLS L&T Committee
From: Alan Story, Module Convenor LW 813
Re: Evaluating the marking of preparation and oral participation in LW 813
Date: 1 March 2002
During the Lent term 2002, the LLM course, Contemporary Topics in Intellectual
Property Law (LW 813), conducted an “experiment” that involved the awarding of
20% of the overall mark for seminar preparation and participation. As the course
evaluations for this module have now been completed and the data compiled, it is
possible to write an interim report on the results of this experiment and to draw some
conclusions. When a second questionnaire, more specifically focused on participation
and the particulars of this experiment has been administered, and the overall marks for
this module are finalised, a second wrap-up report will be written.
The format of this course
LW 813 this year involved an overview of UK copyright doctrine (in part one) and an
in-depth examination of four contemporary copyright issues (in part two.) At the first
meeting of this class, the format of the module was explained to the students, and in
particular:
a) at the first class, each student was asked to select one topic from part one and one
from part two for which they would be act as a “designated contributor”;
b) all students were to prepare the assigned reading for a each seminar, derived from a
two-volume course pack and statute book, and guided by a set of questions prepared
by the course convenor.
c) all students were asked to participate actively in each seminar, although the
‘designated contributors’ were expected to play a leading role.
d) A total of 20% of the total marks for this module was to be awarded for seminar
preparation and participation.
Fuller details of this approach and the educational philosophy animating it can be
found in Appendix One, which contains excerpts from the LW 813 module outline
that was given to students.
The results of this experiment
A total of 10 students registered for LW 813 in 2002; it should be stressed that this
cohort was typical of a KLS LLM module and contained a spread of good, average
and weaker students.
As both the course evaluations ( see details in Appendix Two) reveal and as I have
concluded from my own direct experience as the teacher of this module, this
experiment has been highly successful. The overall student rating of this module was
4.9 (out of a possible 5.0) and the comments from individual students (Appendix 2-
1
Part B) reveal that the participation of students in the seminars was one of the features
that they most appreciated.
Indeed, advance preparation by and participation of all students --- and the two are
intimately linked --- has been very high. At each two-hour seminar, every student has
contributed at least once and, except in several cases, it was clear that their responses,
views, and questions arose from having done the assigned reading before the class. To
date, all of the designated contributors have also performed to a high standard.
Attendance at the course has also been excellent; so far, there have only been two
absences ( two different students one time only). The convenor has kept a notebook
on the levels of participation at each of the seminars.
Some conclusions that can be drawn
1. Providing the incentive/”carrot” of awarding a significant percentage of the overall
module marks for preparation and participation is one factor that contributes to the
establishment of a conducive learning environment in a module. How much of a
factor it is difficult to say exactly. That is, the marks incentive is not necessarily a precondition for greater student involvement in their own education, yet it is difficult to
suggest what would be the negative consequences of a 80/20 marks split, as compared
to the existing reliance on a written essay for 100 per cent of the overall mark. In fact,
increased oral participation is likely to lead to higher quality written work; at least two
students are planning to write their essays on topics debated in the class and appear to
be highly motivated.
2. Students have reacted positively to this experiment. It has encouraged their own
self-study, the growth of their own self-confidence and oral presentational skills, and
the development of a more engaged, active and critical orientation to the law and legal
questions. Further, there is often been reduced boredom and fatigue among students
when they participate actively in each class; indeed, one of the main “complaints”
from students is that the two hours classes (which run from 11-1 over the lunch hour )
are not long enough …and indeed several have run 15-20 minutes over time.
3. The success of this experiment is predominantly due to the efforts and interests of
the students taking this course.
4. This is a relatively easy system for a university teacher to establish and administer.
Most of the work involved occurs during the initial organisation of the course, during
the formulation of hopefully good questions, and during the preparation for individual
seminars. In other words, there is really little new or extra work…and the overall
results are gratifying to a teacher and, quite frankly, increase job satisfaction. Both are
matters of no small significance in these days of QAA, RAE, and increased student
enrolment.
5. While there are various methods of including an oral evaluation component in a
module (e.g. students could be asked to make 10-15 minute “uninterrupted” or
somewhat “ stand alone” presentations), there are many benefits to using a more
dialogical and integrated approach to oral contributions. On the one hand, I have
found from my own previous experience that a relatively small percentage of students
can deliver a good 10-15 minute presentation that provides a good “ teachable
moment” for the rest of the class. And, on the other hand, a more integrated and
2
deliberately interrupted approach permits the participation of all students every week
and allows the teacher to guide the discussion into more productive terrains.
6. There are other factors, beside the mere establishment of an oral assessment
component, which would make this experiment and its approach transferable, perhaps
with modifications, to other KLS UG and PG modules. These include: a) the nature of
the material being studied; b) the experience of the teacher; c) the teacher’s interest in
and enthusiasm for encouraging oral contributions from students.
7. It is worthwhile for other KLS UG and PG teachers to consider the applicability of
this approach in their own modules. I predict that, unfortunately, there will be severe
resistance to the adoption of such measures. When the idea of including an oral
assessment component was first discussed at a KLS graduate studies meeting in the
spring 2001 ( the idea was first raised by PG students), there was active hostility and
indifference to this suggestion from other graduate teachers. And there have also been
suggestions that this oral assessment approach should either be used in either all LLM
modules or none. Given that I expect there will not be unanimous agreement to
adopting such an approach, I would considerate it most unfortunate if a “ we must all
use the same assessment methods” view prevails.
3
Appendix One - Excerpts from the LW 813 Module outline
….
4) How this course will be conducted
LW 813 is a postgraduate seminar module and its relative success (….or failure) as a
course and educational experience will be strongly influenced by your advance
preparation for each seminar and your direct participation in each session. Hence,
it cannot be stressed too strongly that you need to do the assigned reading, plus any
extra material of interest, before each seminar. While the instructor certainly has a
key role to play in the planning and direction of the course and will provide, in
advance, a list of initial questions to look at for each seminar, you, as a student, are
the key actor. Here, as expressed by Prof. Andrew Herman, a sociologist at Drake
University, is a brief statement on the role of the university teacher and student
participation to which I subscribe:
“Class participation: My basic pedagogical philosophy is that "knowledge"
is the fruit of the effervescence of discussion and dialogue between people
who are willing to be changed, however slightly, by what they hear and
speak. For this change of heart and mind called "learning" to take place,
you must actively participate in class. Although I will take the lead in
conjuring the space of dialogue and giving form to the discussion, as well
as sometimes lecturing in order to explain difficult concepts, the success
of this course for you individually and the class as a whole depends on your
willingness and desire to be responsible for your own education by being
prepared for and participating in class.”
In other words, each seminar will be conducted on a level that assumes that you have
a basic grasp of the essentials of that particular topic and the seminar itself will
concentrate on the most contested and critical aspects of that topic. (If, for some
reason, you have not done the requisite reading in advance, you should still come to
the seminar and get as much out of the session as possible.)
Although all students should prepare notes, queries, and points of view on the
readings, three-five students will have special responsibilities in preparation and
participation each week as they will be called upon to “kick off” the seminars. We
will call these students “designated contributors” and, although they will have
“special” contribution duties each week, all students should come prepared to
intervene and give their point of view. (Assign yourself to one of the seminars by
signing the “designated contributor” sign-up sheet that will be circulated at the first
seminar; the completed schedule will be distributed at the second seminar.)
In their initial responses to the pre-distributed questions, the designated contributors
should aim to do two main things:
1) give a brief overview of the main points made in the readings ( as specified by the
questions) .
2) provide some critical commentary on the readings.
4
5) Assessment, AOBS, and Essays
A) Assessment
Students are required :
a) to submit one essay of 3,000-4,000 words (excluding footnotes and bibliography)
for this module; and
b) to prepare for seminars and actively participate in the discussions and debate.
The essay will constitute 80% of your final mark.
The remaining 20% will be your preparation and participation mark. (How this latter
mark will be calculated is explained in Appendix Three ; this matter will also be
discussed at the first seminar on 16 January.)
…
Appendix three – The Marks for Preparation and Participation
This is the slightly–edited version of the memo that I sent to the Faculty of Social
Sciences Learning and Teaching Committee explaining how the “preparation and
participation” mark will be awarded in this class.
To: UKC Faculty of Social Sciences L & T Committee
From: Alan Story, Module Convenor LW 813, KLS
Re: Oral assessment component in LW 813 (Contemporary Topics in IP Law)
Date: 14 December 2001
This memo briefly describes how the 20% oral assessment component in LW 813
(Contemporary Topics in Intellectual Property Law) be calculated when this course is
offered in the Lent term 2002. (The remaining 80% is based on one essay of 3,0004,000 words.) …
As is done in my other IP (UG and PG) courses, all students will be asked (during the
first class in the term) to select during which weeks and for which topics (in this case,
dealing with copyright issues) they wish to act as “designated contributors”(DC).
Although all students are expected to do the required assigned reading for each class
and come prepared to answer pre-distributed questions for each topic each week, the
DCs have “special responsibilities” and can expect to be called upon by the seminar
leader to answer these questions and raise comments and criticism about the assigned
reading. While all students, especially in a smaller class (e.g. less than 20) are
expected to participate, the DCs (usually 3-4 per week) are expected to be “the stars”
for that particular seminar. The DCs, it should be emphasised are not expected to
make formal oral presentations, but rather to respond and raise questions within a
Socratic approach to teaching.
In LW 813, all students will be DCs twice during the term, once in the part one and
once in part two. The 20% calculation will be derived as follows:
a) the reading and preparation done by each DC. (The extent of their preparation will
be clear from how they respond in calculation b);
b) the ability of each DC to respond to the pre-distributed questions and otherwise
comment on the assigned readings during the seminar;
c) the participation and responsiveness of non-DCs each week during the seminar.
5
What I will be interested in are the following: ability to construct and present an
argument, understanding of the particular course content for that week, ability to
respond to questions, and oral communication skills more generally. In calculating
(b), the mark for the term will be weighed in favour of the second session at which
each student is a DC. By the second part of the term, the students will have a
heightened appreciation of the teaching and learning culture that the convenor is
trying to establish.
….At the end of the term, the convenor will give each student her or his oral
assessment mark and they will be invited to attend special office hours to discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of their oral work during the course. As this approach to
teaching and assessment is an experiment within the KLS LLM programme, all of the
students will be asked to fill in a brief survey asking for their reactions to this
experiment and suggesting improvements.
6
Appendix Two – LW 813 Course Evaluation results
This appendix gives the overall results of the anonymous course evaluation for LW
813 that was conducted on 27 Feb. 2002 among the 10 registered students.
Part A gives the returns for the seven “rating” questions asked; the rating ranges from
1 = low to 5= high.
Question
Rating
1. How clearly were the module’s objectives stated and how
effectively were they achieved?
4.8
2. How stimulating and interesting was the overall module?
5
3. How good was the practical administration and day-to-day
organisation of this module?
4.9
4. How coherently were the module’s content and themes
constructed and how coherently were they delivered?
5
5. How useful were the module outline, reading lists, and other
module handouts?
5
6. How satisfactory were the textbook and/or materials packed
used in this module?
4.9
7. How effective were the seminars and/or lectures in this module?
4.8
Overall evaluation of this module:
4.9
Part B records the responses to the two open-ended questions in the course evaluation.
Question 1 : What I liked about the module and lecturer?
Student #1
The involvement and enthusiasm of the teacher; the quality of the course pack; the
participation during the lecture; interest of the areas covered.
Student #2
Really liked the discussion, a very good teaching method. Very enthusiastic teacher,
inspires the students. To put it honest: best LLM course being taught.
Student #3
Stimulating. There is always a burning zeal to learn more. You learn to nearly perfect
the art of learning. He is my best tutor, this is my best module.
Student #4
He is definitely the most enthusiastic teacher I had. Was able to also make his
students enthusiastic ( at least me). Very good. He is also very helpful.
7
Student #5
Everything: Interesting topics, contemporary and debatable. Great enthusiasm and
commitment from Alan. Highly stimulating. Fabulously organised. The epitome of
what a module & lecturer should be. The course pack was great- well organised,
avoided the problem of obtaining the resources ourselves. The seminar questions for
each week ensured participation by everyone.
Student #6
I like the participation and how the seminars are given. I like the motivation and the
enthusiasm of the lecturer.
Student #7
The style of the marks evaluation
Student #8
So interesting. The lecturer is very stimulating. Expecting us to prepare the seminars
in depth is really the best way for all of us to enjoy the class and get more knowledge
out of it.
Student #9
Quite stimulating. Makes students to work hard at the course. Lecturer is very
organised and committed. Encourage students to air their views freely. Best lecturer
has come across. This teaching method should be emulated. Course pack is
interesting; you don’t get tired of reading it.
Student #10
Everything: very stimulating, but I really needed at the end my professor’s opinion so
that I know if I am right or wrong. But my professor makes me think. He reminds me
of the professor in the film “Dead Poet’s society.” Passionate for his work.
Question #2 : Please state what changes and improvements, if any, are needed in
this module?
Student #1
Student #2
Go on! [ I assume means longer classes]
Student #3
Time passes so quickly and there is a lot to do in just two hours of lecture.
Student #4
It’s close to perfect. I couldn’t imagine doing it better.
Student #5
It would be great to have this module longer just because we do not want it to end.
Two hours is not enough. However, the taught portion of it is supposed to be two
hours. Perhaps a voluntary IP discussion group would be good.
8
Student #6
Student #7
More time.
Student #8
Maybe I would like to have the lecturer’s opinion more often. He is committed to be
as objective as possible but I think I would prefer to know exactly what his personal
views are on some issues ( and thus to disagree or agree with him.) Otherwise, no
major changes should be done.
Student #9
Can’t think of any. Lecturer seems to have everything well sorted out. Two hours
seems to be too short for the class.
Student #10
It is the best class; don’t change a thing.
Part C : Would you recommend this module to other KLS students next year?
Yes – 9 ; No – 0 ( One student omitted to answer this question.)
9