Hide Notes 

Slide 1: Simulation, technology, professionalism: transforming the student experience Liz Li Georgia State U. College of Law Paul Maharg Glasgow Graduate School of Law
Slide 2: overview 1. The scope of implementation at GGSL 2. Example: Personal Injury Negotiation transaction 3. The student experience 4. Shift in staff roles 5. Further information The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 2
Slide 3: simulations in legal learning…  Are close to the world of practice, but safe from the (possible)     realities of malpractice and negligent representation. Enable students to practise legal transactions, discuss the transactions with other tutors, students, and use a variety of instruments or tools, online or textual, to help them understand the nature and consequences of their actions Facilitate a wide variety of assessment, from high-stakes assignments with automatic fail points, to coursework that can double as a learning zone and an assessment assignment Encourage collaborative learning. The guilds and groups of hunters in multi-player online games can be replicated for quite different purposes in legal education. Students begin to see the potential for the C in ICT; and that technology is not merely a matter of word-processed essays & quizzes, but a form of learning that changes quite fundamentally what and how they learn. The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 3
Slide 4: scope of the implementation The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 4
Slide 5: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 5
Slide 6: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 6
Slide 7: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 7
Slide 8: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 8
Slide 9: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 9
Slide 10: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 10
Slide 11: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 11
Slide 12: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 12
Slide 13: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 13
Slide 14: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 14
Slide 15: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 15
Slide 16: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 16
Slide 17: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 17
Slide 18: personal injury negotiation project Administration:  272 students, 68 firms, 7 anonymous information sources  68 document sets, 34 transactions – students represent claimant (injured at work) or defender (insurance company)  students have 12 weeks to achieve settlement  introductory & feedback lectures  discussion forums  FAQs & transaction guideline flowcharts  voluntary face-to-face surgeries with a PI solicitor The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 18
Slide 19: PI project: assessment criteria We require from each student firm a body of evidence consisting of:  fact-finding – from information sources in the virtual community)  professional legal research – using WestLaw + paperworld sources  formation of negotiation strategy – extending range of Foundation Course learning  performance of strategy – correspondence + optional f2f meeting, recorded The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 19
Slide 20: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 20
Slide 21: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 21
Slide 22: The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 22
Slide 23: statistics Total correspondence 2000/2001 sent by all firms 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 Number 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 25 0 1 3 5 7 9 The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 23
Slide 24: statistics Settlement amounts 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 9&10 15&16 21&22 25&26 27&28 1&2 3&4 5&6 7&8 11&12 13&14 17&18 19&20 23&24 29&30 31&32 33&34 35&36 37&38 39&40 41&42 43&44 45&46 0 The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 24
Slide 25: statistics 900 Correspondence 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 29 2 43 13 timelines 871 406 346 224 168 260 155 198 197 310 78 49 95 31 169 134 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 25 Week Number The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008
Slide 26: PI project: (some of) what students learned             extended team working real legal fact-finding real legal research process thinking in the project setting out negotiation strategies in the context of (un)known information writing to specific audiences handling project alongside other work commitments structuring the argument of a case from start to finish keeping cool in face-to-face negotiations more effective delegation keeping files taking notes on the process... The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 26
Slide 27: PI project: what students would have done differently… ‘In tackling this project I think that our group made two main mistakes. The first mistake we made was in approaching the task as law students as opposed to Lawyers. By this I mean we tried to find the answer and work our way back. Immediately we were thinking about claims and quantum and blame. I don't think we actually initiated a claim until a week before the final settlement. I think the phrase "like a bull in a china shop" would aptly describe the way we approached the problem. […] Our group knew what area of law and tests to apply yet we ended up often being ahead of ourselves and having to back-pedal The second mistake we made was estimating how long it would take to gather information. We started our project quite late on and began to run out of time towards the end. None of us appreciated the length of time it would take to gather information and on top of this we would often have to write two or three letters to the same person as the initial letter would not ask the right question.’ The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 27
Slide 28: PI project: what students would have done differently… ‘At the beginning we thought we perhaps lost sight of the fact that we had a client whom we had a duty to advise and inform. On reflection we should have issued terms of engagement and advised the client better in monetary terms what the likely outcome was going to be.’ ‘[…] unlike other group projects I was involved in at undergraduate level I feel that I derived genuine benefit from this exercise in several ways: 1. reinforcing letter-writing, negotiation, time-management and IT skills 2. conducting legal research into issues of quantum 1. working effectively in a group as a group - not delegating tasks at the first meeting and then putting together pieces of work at the second meeting.’ The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 28
Slide 29: Extracts from recent student feedback... The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 29
Slide 30: Participant A  GGSL could not have replicated the workplace any better than they did in Personal Injury and Conveyancing projects  I liked the practical group exercises used in Personal Injury and Conveyancing. They were 100% simulations and felt real and live.  The digital environment was helpful. It highlighted important aspects of the workplace, such as corresponding by letter, getting assignments by email, needing quick turnaround The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 30
Slide 31: Participant B After your LLB, were you prepared for your traineeship? No. Did Diploma help to prepare you? Yes. It even helped with [job] interviews, because I could see why firms were asking me to do the tasks, letterwriting, etc […] these were the same tasks I was doing in my Diploma subjects Any particularly helpful aspect? Practice Management. Trainees had to keep log books and timebooks. This was totally new to me. The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 31
Slide 32: Participant B (cont) Any way Diploma could have been better preparation? Not really. There is so much material to get through and not much time. There is only time to cover the basics. But there was some wasted time and I think the Diploma could be condensed into a smaller time period Plus, every firm is different anyway. Any particular subject/skill you think the GGSL taught well? Client Interviewing & Negotiation, face-to-face and videotaped. Gave a framework to use in the future. The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 32
Slide 33: Participant B (cont) Anything else? Online simulations are a great way to learn. Brought up issues I wouldn’t have thought of otherwise. The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 33
Slide 34: Participant C The PI project was brilliant and was exactly analogous to real life. The best take-away from the Diploma is correspondence – getting used to the idea of corresponding through letters The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 34
Slide 35: Participant D  The LLB and the Diploma are like chalk and cheese. The LLB focuses on the why of law; the Diploma focuses on the how. These are very different and it takes some adjustment to move from one to the next.  The Diploma was a good preparation for work-life  Learned to rely on other people  Learned how to work with other people  Learned to manage expectations of other people The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 35
Slide 36: portrait of the teacher as designer  Shift in traditional role of staff as centre of the knowledge      web Knowledge and skills are distributed across webs Staff spend more time designing online learning with tutors, postgrad assistants, trainees, student monitors, ie design work using…  resources  simulations  just-in-time learning  salon & masterclass models of group learning … over whole programmes of study. Within and between disciplines Within and between institutions internationally The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 36
Slide 37: the SIMPLE community of practice Qualities of the CoP –  Collaborative, between staff and students at different institutions, in different professions, eg:  On-line repository of blueprints  Second-wave partners working with each other  Interdisciplinary – education, law, technology, medical ed., architecture, business, music, literature ...  International – in our increasingly globalized jurisdictions we need to enable our students to work with others  Development of experiential approaches that can transform legal education The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 37
Slide 38: further information Blog: http://zeugma.typepad.com http://www.slideshare.net/paulmaharg Slideshare: SSRN: Book: http://ssrn.com/author=272987 http://www.transforming.org.uk SIMPLE: http://tinyurl.com/2mqdhw The Future of Legal Education Conference, February 2008 38