SUMMARY REPORT on Legal Academic Writing Skills (LAWS) 2009-2010
1. The LAWS course, developed in collaboration with the Teaching and
Learning Centre (TLC), was intended to achieve the following main objectives:

Develop legal writing skills, in the context of both essay questions and
problem questions.

Increase feedback offered to students on written work.
In this context, the principal learning outcomes were identified as follows:




Enable the identification of main issues raised by a question.
Learn how to achieve an appropriate balance between analysis and
description.
Enhance linguistic accuracy.
Manage resources effectively.
In view of these aims and learning outcomes it was decided that Criminal law
(LL108) would, at the first instance, be an appropriate and concrete platform
upon which to build the substantive elements of the course and test its
success in achieving the desired learning outcomes. It is noted that LAWS
was designed as a skills-based course, with emphasis on the element of
transferability of academic writing skills across legal subjects.
2. LAWS was comprised by three components: lectures (one on essay
writing in week 4 and one on answering problem questions on week 14), 1on-1 surgery sessions (weeks 5-6, 8-10, 15-20) and a peer-marking
exercise (week 10). These were supplemented by a LAWS section on the
LL108 Moodle site, containing tips on how to plan for / write essays and
problem questions and information regarding surgery sessions etc.
The lectures were delivered by Neil McLean (TLC) and were designed to
combine theoretical background knowledge (on essay writing / problem
solving) with a more practical / participatory element. Participants gained
hands-on experience through the use of handouts / exercises that allowed for
contextualisation and practical application of the advice offered.
The surgery sessions were divided into three types / categories: essay /
problem-question planning sessions (weeks 5-6 and 15-16), feedback
sessions (weeks 8-10 and 19-20) and exam preparation sessions (weeks 1819). The timing of each type of sessions matched the timetable for LL108
assignments.
Planning sessions were held in the early weeks of each term, when students
were preparing their formative essay / problem question. A uniform deadline
for formative assignments was agreed with the LL108 teaching team, which
was a necessary condition for holding planning sessions in weeks 5-6 and 1516.
Feedback sessions were held towards the end of each term, after students
had received their formatively assessed essays / problem questions. The
purpose of these sessions was to offer more extensive and personalised
feedback form a point of view of structure and writing style. It was agreed that
LAWS feedback sessions would not cover matters of content / substance, in
line with the skills-based rationale of the course. Again, a uniform deadline for
the return of marked formative assignments to students was agreed with the
LL108 teaching team.
Exam preparation sessions were held in weeks 18-19 in order to allow class
teachers adequate time to mark and return the final formative assignments
(which form the basis of the feedback sessions). Students were given the
option of preparing a skeleton answer for any of the questions on the 2009
exam paper and discuss their proposed answer from a point of view of
structure (with emphasis on the correct identification / interpretation of the
question).
3. Attendance:
The numbers of students that attended the various LAWS components are as
follows:




MT Lecture: 120 + students (approx.)
LT Lecture: 90 + students (approx.)
Peer-marking exercise: 16 students
Surgery sessions: 52 students
The attendance pattern demonstrates that LAWS was generally well received
and its resources were used by a reasonable number of LL108 students.
Both lectures were well attended and student feedback was very positive,
particularly for the MT lecture (see LAWS Student Survey attached).
The peer-marking exercise did not attract the estimated numbers of students,
possibly due to timetabling issues (late in week 10).
Regarding the surgery sessions, the following table (see below) demonstrates
the attendance frequency across the academic year. The table is designed to
present the total number of students that booked and attended at least one
surgery session during the academic year (rather than the total number of
sessions). It must be noted that the actual number of sessions is considerably
higher than the one appearing on LSE4U (which was used as the basis for the
current report), given that: a) students that booked a feedback session
through LSE4U in the Lent term could not book an exam preparation session
(due to a technical restriction of the online booking system) and, therefore, do
not appear twice; b) when a particular sessions was not fully booked,
participants were allowed more time than the 15 minute allotted slot.
Attendance frequency
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
31
59,6
59,6
59,6
2
16
30,8
30,8
90,4
3
4
7,7
7,7
98,1
4
1
1,9
1,9
100,0
Total
52
100,0
100,0
It is evident that at least 40% of the total number of students that made use of
the surgery sessions attended more than one session (as explained above,
this percentage is actually higher). This is probably reflective of the value
most students attached to LAWS in improving their performance.
It should be noted, however, that attendance varied considerably across the
different types of sessions. Planning sessions were only sparsely attended,
while feedback and exam preparation sessions were almost fully booked
across the terms. A possible explanation for such discrepancy is the key role
of class teachers in “advertising” the values of LAWS: students that had
received relatively low marks for their formative assignments often took the
suggestion of their class teacher to attend a feedback surgery session. Part of
the reason, of course, may also relate to students’ time constraints, with
multiple assignments being due around the same time in the MT and LT.
It is possible to discern a considerable gender imbalance in the attendance
pattern, as demonstrated in the table below.
Gender
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
men
10
19,2
19,2
19,2
women
42
80,8
80,8
100,0
Total
52
100,0
100,0
The numbers should, of course, be compared to the intake of 1 st year
undergraduates in the Department, but there is an indication of possibly
significant trends. A more comprehensive study along these lines (possibly
including other characteristics as well) could prove useful in identifying
whether this is the case and whether these trends need to be factored in the
course design in any way.
4. Student satisfaction survey
The results of the Student Satisfaction Survey, carried out during the LL108
revision lecture (Summer term), are attached to this report.
It should be noted that the results are generally very positive, although the low
number of responses (16) does not guarantee a fully representative picture.
Two main issues seem to be raised in the qualitative section of the SSS: first,
the need to expand LAWS so that it includes all 1 st year courses. Second, that
the surgery sessions could be more frequent / allow for more time per session
and that the MT lecture could be held earlier in the academic year.
5. Looking ahead: recommendations for the academic year 2010-2011
LAWS seems to have been successful in addressing a genuine lacuna in the
LLB programme. The latter is inevitably designed around the need to provide
lectures and classes that are primarily content-oriented, which is especially
true for core legal subjects. With the syllabus of most first year courses being
already quite tight, there is hardly any time to devote to the technicalities of
legal academic writing, a skill that is key to the successful completion of the
degree, as well as the increased employability of LSE graduates.
With the completion of the first year of LAWS it is possible to discern three
types of challenges for the way it will be run in the future.
Expansion:
Arguably the principal concern raised by students both in the satisfaction
survey and during surgery sessions is that of expanding the module so that it
covers all first year courses. This would obviously allow for a more “targeted”
approach, tailored to the needs of each individual student (who may seem to
be doing well in Criminal law essays but encounter problems in other first year
courses). This would inevitably lead to an exponential increase in the number
of hours devoted to 1-on-1 sessions and effectively require a complete
reorganisation of the LAWS structure / team. Additional tutors would have to
be brought in to manage the workload and provision should be made for
collaboration with the teaching teams of all first year courses. This would also
entail a considerable increase in the Department spending towards LAWS, as
such an expansion would require at least four tutors managing the 1-on-1
surgery sessions during the year.
It is submitted, however, that, apart from the practical difficulties that an all-out
expansion would generate, there is value in retaining the existing structure,
whereby LAWS is a non-compulsory module attached to Criminal Law. First
of all, it should be recognised that LAWS should remain a non-compulsory
module, as its rationale is to offer additional skills-resources to students that
need them and to the extent that these are needed, without taking the focus
away from legal substance. Decoupling LAWS from Criminal Law is likely to
create confusion, especially to first-year students, as to the relationship
between substance and form within a legal context, with the latter operating
as the necessary complement of the former. Maintaining the link with Criminal
law will help convey the message that good academic writing skills is a sine
qua non of a successful law student or lawyer, but only insofar as this set of
skills is applied properly to a given legal problem.
In order to allow for some flexibility nonetheless, it is submitted that in the
following academic year the module can feature a new set of 1-on-1 surgery
sessions (weeks 7 and 17) devoted to non-Criminal law essays / problem
questions. This will increase the workload, but it is expected that no more than
two tutors will be required to manage the totality of surgery sessions.
Timetabling:
Provisional arrangements have already been made with Timetables with
regard to the scheduling of LAWS lectures / Peer-marking exercise for the
following academic year. This is likely to help increase the profile of LAWS
within the student body, conveying a strong message that it is an integral
element of LL108, which in turn will probably improve attendance both for
lectures and for surgery sessions.
Because of the nature of the surgery sessions (essay planning / feedback /
exam preparation), it is not possible to spread them out evenly throughout the
academic year. The result is that particular weeks are very cluttered in terms
of workload (especially weeks 7-9 and 17-19). This has had a knock-on effect
on managing student expectations with regard to the time allowed for each
individual session during different weeks, as well as on the total number of
surgery sessions scheduled, with extra sessions added during weeks 8-9 and
18-19.
With an expectation of higher student participation in the surgery sessions in
the following academic year, it is essential to opt for a less flexible timetable in
order to keep workload in check. The latter will be publicised at the beginning
of the year through Moodle.
Collaboration with TLC / TQARO:
In order to obtain a more thorough and accurate picture of the success of
LAWS it would be useful to conduct a qualitative analysis of student
performance in Criminal law this academic year. The list of students that
participated in 1-on-1 surgery sessions can be used to trace their progress
throughout the terms, culminating with their exam results. Although it is likely
that a gradual improvement in performance may be due to a combination of
factors, it may be possible to discern a trend or pattern, especially with regard
to the lower strata of grades. This will hopefully provide some indication of the
best strategies to render LAWS more attractive to the students that need it the
most.
Along the same lines, it will be useful to compare the 2010 examiners’ reports
for LL108 against these of the past few years.
Finally, the student satisfaction survey for LAWS should be conducted at the
end of the Lent term 2010-2011 by TQARO, using a comparable format to
that of student surveys for LL108.