Eynon, ‘The use of ICTs for teaching and learning in law education: some innovators’ perspectives’ [2006] 3 Web JCLI
http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2006/issue3/eynon3.html
The use of ICTs for teaching and learning in law education: some innovators’ perspectives
Rebecca Eynon, PhD
Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford
rebecca.eynon@oii.ox.ac.uk

Copyright © Rebecca Eynon 2006
First published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues
______________________________________________________________________
Summary
There is a range of individual and cultural factors that shape academics’ use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for teaching and learning in higher education. As it becomes increasingly apparent that ‘a one size fits all’ approach to the use and adoption of e-learning is not appropriate, researchers need to explore how and why academics are using ICTs in teaching and learning in different contexts. Such work will help to provide a clearer vision of where it is appropriate to use new technologies in higher education. It will also help to develop strategies to support existing initiatives and encourage further appropriate adoption. This paper reports the findings from a focus group of seven innovators who used ICTs for teaching and learning in Law education; and highlights the similarities and differences of their experiences. The main themes discussed are: the changing characteristics of the nature and role of higher education Institutions (HEIs); innovators’ motivations to adopt ICTs in teaching and learning; how innovators are using the technology for teaching law students; the difficulties these academics have encountered; and the factors that may influence the further adoption of new technologies for teaching and learning in higher education. The research provides a greater insight into the use of new technologies for teaching Law; and contributes to debates about how and where it is appropriate to use ICTs in teaching and how best to support such initiatives.
____________________________________________________________________
Contents

Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Bibliography
____________________________________________________________________
Introduction
By examining the e-learning strategies developed by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) it is clear there is a great deal of policy commitment to encourage further adoption and use of ICTs for teaching and learning. Indeed, e-learning has the potential to enhance all aspects of the educational process; yet we are still discovering where and when e-learning is appropriate, and how best to facilitate adoption of ICTs for teaching and learning within higher education. 

From an analysis of the available research on this topic it is clear that there is a range of individual, practical and cultural factors that shape academics’ use (and non use) of new technologies for teaching and learning. These include: the needs of the learner, the characteristics and experiences of  academics, the technology available, the environment within which academics work and how valuable they perceive the use of the technology to be for teaching their students (Spotts, 1999). One key factor is the disciplinary context of which the academic is part (Rowley et al., 2002). Indeed, research has demonstrated that there are disciplinary and subject differences in the way ICTs are being used and adopted in teaching and learning (Jones et al., 2004). 

In order to improve policy and practice in e-learning at an institutional level a greater understanding is required of the nuances of academics’ experiences of using ICTs in teaching and learning across higher education institutions. In this study, the discipline of law was selected to explore academics’ use and experiences of new technologies for teaching their students; and investigates the potential similarities and differences of academics’ use of new technologies for teaching and learning within the discipline. Such work can help to help to inform debates about how and where it is appropriate to use ICTs in teaching law and how best to support e-learning initiatives across the university.

In this exploratory study, academics were invited to a focus group to share and discuss their own experiences of using ICTs for teaching their students. This paper will focus on five key themes that emerged from these discussions. These are: the changing characteristics of the nature and role of HEIs; the motivations of academics to adopt ICTs in teaching and learning; how ICTs are being used in teaching and learning; the difficulties innovators have encountered when using these kinds of technologies for their students; and the factors that may influence the further adoption of new technologies in higher education. These themes will be discussed in detail in the sections below. First, the methods utilised for the study are summarised.

Method 
In June 2004 a focus group was held with academics who used ICTs to teach Law students. The discussion group was part of a one day event where staff from HEIs across the UK were invited to a workshop where they were presented with the findings from a research project that explored the use of the web for teaching and learning in higher education (Eynon, 2006) and were then asked to participate in a focus group to discuss their own experiences of using ICTs in teaching and learning. The day was designed to provide a greater insight into the use of ICTs for teaching and learning in higher education, explore the similarities and differences of academics’ use of new technologies for teaching and learning within legal education, identify further areas for research, enhance network opportunities, and promote cross institutional discussion about the use of the new technologies for teaching and learning.

Potential participants were contacted via several methods. In the first instance the UK Centre for Legal Education (UKCLE) part of the Learning and Teaching Subject Network (LTSN) was contacted, and as a result specific individuals who were likely to be interested in the study were contacted and adverts were placed in the centre’s newsletter. Email postings were made to relevant subject specific websites and personal contacts were also utilised.

Seven academics took part in the discussion group. The participants were based at a range of higher education colleges, pre and post 1992 universities. Five members of the group were ‘traditional’ academics who carried out typical teaching, research and administrative responsibilities; one member had a reduced teaching load with greater responsibility for the development and implementation of ICTs in teaching and learning within his/her school, and the final participant was a librarian who also had teaching responsibilities. Participants were involved in teaching a range of courses and programmes in law at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

The focus group discussions lasted an hour and a half and were semi-structured. The debate was recorded and notes were made at the meeting. The tapes were transcribed and the resulting transcript was analysed using NUD*IST.

Results 
Prevalent throughout the discussion were the changes in the nature and role of HEIs over the past two decades. Participants highlighted inter-related factors, such as, the business orientation of university management, the steady reduction in funding per student, the rise in student numbers, and changes in the nature, expectations and motivations of students who were now entering higher education. 

Participants highlighted the ways that they were using, or may use in the future, ICTs for teaching and learning in law. There were three main inter–related motivations for using ICTs. Firstly, participants explained how they were using ICTs to overcome some of the difficulties that had occurred as a result of the changes prevalent in higher education outlined above. For example, participants described how they were now expected to teach a far larger number of students without an associated rise in funding and this had led to large class sizes and timetabling two hour lecture slots with students in order to deal with the sheer number of students now on campus. Clearly, these moves were often as a result of economics and not based on educational motives; though some participants noted that even full time students sometimes preferred to have all their lectures blocked together on one day to fit in with their part-time work commitments that were necessary to fund their studies.

A way of using ICTs for overcoming large group sizes was to use these kinds of technologies to provide more resource based forms of learning, to allow full time students to come in to campus for a limited time and spend the rest of the time studying at home, and to provide more flexible learning opportunities for part-time students. Indeed, ICTs were felt to be particularly suited to providing more flexible learning opportunities for all students. An example provided by the group was the use of webcasts of lectures allowing students to choose to come in to university to attend the live lecture or view the webcast in their own time. This was particularly useful if lectures had to be scheduled at inconvenient times for students who had other commitments, for example, early evening, in two hour blocks due to the constraints on lecturer’s time and room availability. The group stressed how such systems had to be developed with an acknowledgement of the kinds of students that the lecturer was trying to teach; weaker or less experienced students would need greater guidance and structure, for example compulsory attendance of a weekly seminar in addition to the webcast, compared to the needs of more experienced students who may be better equipped to working independently.

ICTs were also felt to be useful to provide a means of communication between students, which may be beneficial for part time-learners and full time students who are often taught in large groups and spend a lot of time off campus. Participants provided examples where on-line discussions had provided social support and had, on some occasions, enhanced the learning process for students. As a participant commented, 

“This year we have experimented, we created a café area where they are anonymous…And I have said, look, you can put want you want in there, I am not looking in there, I haven’t got time, you know, it is just for you to use and there is a whole pile of messages - it is like MSN gone mad. But there is also some absolute gems where someone has said, ‘how can you possibly answer this damn assignment in a 1000 words,’ and someone else has said, ‘well, I have started by doing this and this and this,’ someone else has chipped in…There have been just a few threads like that that are an extraordinarily good demonstration of students teaching themselves how to learn. It is a slow process and some of the responses they have come up with are fantastic, it is actually guidance and advice I couldn’t have given them myself…but I think that has only come through the anonymity.”
Participant 1

A second motivation for participants to use ICTs for teaching and learning was to enhance student learning. This was achieved in a variety of ways; participants provided examples of using the web provide: summaries of face to face seminars to assist students with revision and to enhance understanding, on-line discussions to enable students to interact with the lecturer and other students, and the use of simulations to teach students knowledge and particular skills. The potential use of simulations was discussed at some length by the group as it was perceived as a particularly valuable way of using new technologies for teaching Law students; especially students who were studying professional qualifications. As one participant commented,

“In professional law it works really well because what they are supposed to be doing is learning to be professional lawyers. So why do we teach them to do that in an academic way with lectures and tutorials and all the rest of it when we could naturally be using the web for simulation to be simulating the Law business where they are practising transactions for example?”
Participant 2

Indeed, some participants also discussed how simulation could be used and/or was being used for undergraduate students. For example, using an online environment for undergraduates to learn negotiation, but with less procedural rigour than would be expected at later stages; or developing an on-line journal for undergraduate law students where the students became members of the editorial board to enhance students academic writing and research skills. However, the suitability of simulation for teaching undergraduates may be a more contentious issue; as one participant noted,
 
“I imagine there would be huge debate….certainly within our department about the academic undergraduate course. I agree with you entirely on the legal practice course I think if you could design a SIM, you know, you have got a virtual reality client coming in, and so on, that would be fantastic.”
Participant 4

Participants within the group were also concerned that many students studying for a Law degree had a limited understanding of what working within the law profession actually meant. Lecturers were concerned that many students had unrealistic expectations of what jobs would involve, largely due to the glamorous images of the law profession present in the media. Participants felt the use of ICTs may be useful to improve students’ awareness and understanding of the law profession. As one participant commented,

“Well this is my idea – I am going to set up [on-line case studies] -- to give them an idea of the things that are not glamorous, -- it is not glamorous, you know, time recording and the pressures to record every billable hour of a week…the little old lady who has got a terrible problem and I don’t want to charge her a £100 an hour, you know, and the ethics of it….It will give them an idea and then they will know they don’t want to do it, thank you very much, or yes they do.”
Respondent 5

Another participant discussed how they were using ICTs to provide students with information about the various career paths in Law, to provide students with the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the Law profession and to encourage students to actively question the profession they were about to become part of.

A third motivation identified by the group to use ICTs in their teaching was their own personal interest and enjoyment in using technology to teach their students. 

A clear theme running throughout the discussions was the participants’ significant understanding of the needs, demands, and expectations of the particular student cohorts that they taught. This related to the level of the course, the educational and social background of the students, and their ability to access and use new technologies for their programme. Further, participants were not interested in using technology for technologies sake but to use ICTs where it could benefit the educational process. 

However, there were several difficulties that the members of the group had encountered when trying to encourage further adoption of ICTs in teaching and learning and/or when attempting to develop their own initiatives in this area. One concern raised by several members of the group was the motivations of senior management in their own institution to use ICTs. Participants often perceived the motivations of management to be based on reducing costs or the availability of the technology as opposed to the potential educational benefits the appropriate use of ICTs could offer students. As one participant commented, 

“One of the reasons of having the technology at [name of HEI] is to keep the students off the campus because we have so many students.”
Respondent 3

Further, some participants were concerned about the way in which policies about the use of ICTs for teaching and learning were developed by senior managers and often imposed upon staff. Members of the focus group were concerned that top down strategies could be counter productive and have a negative influence on the standard of teaching and learning at their institution and the likelihood of the development of innovative teaching using ICTs. Such a situation was most likely to occur where university management stipulated that academics had to use the university approved Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and had to use it in a specified way. For example, in some institutions academics are expected to have, at the very least, a module website that contains the lecture handouts and the aims and objectives for the module. Such an approach was thought to be very damaging on the appropriate adoption of ICTs for teaching and learning, particularly as the technology was presented to staff without any pedagogical basis. Members of the focus group argued that university managers should not dictate to people about how they should teach; as such methods and approaches may not be appropriate for that particular course. As a participant commented, 

“The university said every module must have a [name of VLE] site, and the minimum you must have on there is an outline of the lecture materials. So obviously, I mean if you give that prescription, you know, you go and look at half the Law modules and they have all got a nice [name of VLE] site and they have got their lecture outlines on and that is it because that’s, you know, it is just the total wrong way to go to get people to use it.
……

It worries me that at the moment it has all been kind of management based, driven down, you will do this. Rather than us, as you said, who are teaching it, saying well, you know, we actually don’t want that, it doesn’t work; we want to do it this way. And again probably you come back to a resource issue. I know what would happen if I went to my head of department and said, you know, well can I have seventy five thousand pounds please because I want to employ a programmer and do this and that.”
Respondent 4

Indeed, the problems caused due to a lack of funding were apparent in the group’s discussions. One potential solution presented to the group by one participant was for universities to collaborate when it made financial sense. However, some participants were concerned that collaboration with neighbouring universities was too difficult, due to the different cultures of each institution, a history of competitiveness both in terms of attracting students and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Interestingly, many felt that at an individual level, collaborations between institutions were possible and desirable but at managerial level this would be far more difficult. Further difficulties raised by the group was the lack of time staff had to work on the development and implementation of ICTs for teaching, as such work was often done in the academic’s own time as an addition to their existing duties. Yet surprisingly, it appeared that none of the participants begrudged their time, their focus was the fact that they could not achieve as much in this area as they wished to given the time they had available. A related issue was that participants felt that younger staff were unlikely to begin to use ICTs in their teaching as they needed to publish to be promoted, tended to have less confidence, and had less local knowledge (e.g. how to be resourceful, who to go to, and how to get round official procedures) compared to older, more experienced staff.

A final issue was the dislike of generic software, such as the VLEs that are typically approved by HEIs. As one participant commented, 

“We wanted to integrate the intranet and the internet and we couldn’t see any way of doing that through [name of VLE]. It is highly constraining and very, very generic and it has to be because…they want to sell as much and as many, you know. But it comes back to the point people made earlier that, you know, these kind of generic solutions are imposed corporately and institutionally upon us… whereas we are at the coalface, and it is our discipline, and we want to teach in ways that we want to teach, you know, and it is really annoying to have to teach in the way that [name of VLE] says that we have to teach. I think it is outrageous I really do.”
Respondent 2

Thus, a number of factors were identified from the discussion that may enhance the adoption of the use of ICTs for teaching and learning in legal education. For example, senior management policies need to be based on educational not technological or cost saving agendas, the provision of greater resources to allow staff to develop and evaluate their ideas, to reward achievements in teaching as well as in research, and to create software in conjunction with academics in order for the resulting programmes to be more flexible and better suited to use in specific disciplines. Two further factors raised by the group were quality assurance, which, when used correctly, may help to instigate change to enhance the learning experience of students; and the value of a head of department who had a genuine interest in using ICTs for teaching and learning to enhance the educational experience. Such an individual was likely to negotiate the top down policies from senior management and translate them into something more useful for the staff and students within a particular department or school; and provide staff with more time and resources to develop their own initiatives in this area.

Discussion
Throughout the discussion participants noted several themes at their own HEIs that are apparent across all institutions of higher education in the UK. Changes in the sector have been well documented and include: the move from an elite to a mass education system (Maier et al., 1998), changing learner profiles and expectations, the increasing emphasis on lifelong learning and portfolio careers, flexible learning opportunities (Flew, 2002); and a steady reduction in funding for the sector over the past quarter of a century (Greenway et al., 2000). Changes in the nature and role of universities have led to the emergence of a greater business mindset within institutions of higher education, particularly with the increasing competition from other universities and private organizations for students and research contracts.

The participants’ motivations for using ICTs for their students were prompted by three main inter-relating factors: to enhance student learning, to overcome the challenges that have arisen from the changes within the higher education sector noted above and innovators personal interest and enjoyment in using technology to teach their students. Indeed, these motivations are similar to those identified in other research on this topic (e.g. Steel and Hudson, 2001; Hannan et al., 1999).

Though these general themes are similar; there are nuances in the experiences of the participants. The current mass higher education system in the UK encompasses a diverse range of individuals, studying at a variety of times throughout their lives for a number of different purposes. From the discussions, it was apparent that the participants had a very clear idea of the kinds of students their courses would attract, in terms of educational ability, the level and kind of support the students would require, and the demands and expectations of the cohort. Further, the innovators were using, or planning to use, ICTs in a way that was appropriate for their immediate context and students. For example, participants from post -1992 universities who had a strong widening participation agenda felt that their students would need extra support when using technology to provide more flexible learning opportunities compared to more ‘traditional’ undergraduates or postgraduates on professional courses. Indeed, the extra support students may require when using ICTs in a significant way for teaching and learning have been raised elsewhere in the literature, for example, the importance of timetabled activities for students (e.g. Crook and Light, 2002) and the difficulties students face when expected to engage in the more student-centred approaches to learning which are often required when using ICTs (e.g. Clouder, 1998). In addition, the participants would frequently talk about their activities in this area in terms of their perception of their work environment, for example, the time they had available, the technology on offer, and their institutional and departmental policies on e-learning.

However, there were concerns amongst the group about the motivations of senior management in many HEIs for promoting the use of ICTs for teaching and learning. Clearly, HEIs needed to develop policies that would support the use of ICTs for teaching and learning that were based on educational, not technological or cost saving agendas. Top down policies were criticised by the participants as being counter-productive; alienating staff and leading to inappropriate uses of the generic, institutionally approved VLE that had often been imposed upon academics. Indeed, this is supported by the work of Knight and Trowler (2000); who argue that forcing academics to do something leads to negativity and ‘change without change’ (p. 69).

From the discussions here, it is clear that all actors within higher education need to be engaged in policy change. Any strategic change within higher education institutions needs to involve academics and managers; managing change requires utilising methods that reflect the complexity of the institution (Allen, 2003; Brown, 2000). Institutional policies need to encompass potential solutions to the barriers to innovation identified here and in other research on this topic. These include: allocation of resources, time for staff to innovate, encouraging collaboration and rewarding good teaching in similar ways as high-quality research. Within these policies, some account must be made of the diversity of needs of academics within the same institution (Geoghegan, 1994). For example, for the majority of academics to use ICTs for teaching and learning there needs to be rewards for good teaching; but innovators as defined here typically use new technologies in teaching due to intrinsic motives rather than extrinsic rewards (Newton, 2003). These institutional level policies need to be developed with the intention that departments and individuals have enough flexibility to allow them to create, implement and evaluate the use of ICTs in teaching and learning in their particular context. As Jones and colleagues point out, attention to the local context is important in order for ICTs to be used in such a way that are appropriate for the discipline and the needs and demands of students at different levels of study (Jones et al., 2004).

This mixture of top down and bottom up strategies is supported by participants’ suggestions that the head of department is key in supporting the adoption of ICTs for teaching and learning as the head can negotiate the top down policies and translate them into something more useful for the staff and students in that department. Indeed, this is corroborated by Knight and Trowler who note that departments and sub-units within departments is the key activity system for the majority of higher education staff, and it is at this level that good teaching is facilitated or hampered. The researchers suggest that a key factor in improving teaching is the head of department and the part they play in this activity system (Knight and Trowler, 2000). 

Conclusion
The discussion above has highlighted some of the main themes that arose from the focus group debate with staff who have used ICTs for teaching their Law students. While this is a small scale, exploratory study it is notable that there is a great number of similarities between the experiences of these academics using ICTs for teaching Law students and other literature on this topic that is based on research from a variety of different disciplines and institutions. Indeed, there was a fairly high level of agreement within the group. Due to the very different institutional and departmental contexts within which the individuals work, their different roles, and the different aspects of the discipline they teach, it was anticipated that there would be a great deal of difference amongst academics which is not obviously apparent in the analysis here. A potential reason for this is the method utilised; academics have few chances to discuss the use of ICTs in teaching and learning with others from their own discipline, and perhaps, in the spirit of collaboration, academics found common themes to discuss in detail.

Despite this high level of agreement on general themes, it was clear that the participants’ local contexts shaped both their motivations for using ICTs for their students and the way they actually used these technologies in teaching and learning. This finding is supported by other research exploring the use of new technologies which stress that the use of ICTs will be structured according the context within which the individual is placed, and this context is made up of a range of cultural and more tangible factors. As Selwyn notes, ‘each individual will be constantly negotiating the ‘proper placement of technology’ into their lives according to a range of personal and institutional factors’ (Selwyn, 2003:110). Thus, as is apparent staff will adopt ICTs in teaching in learning in ways that are appropriate to them and their students, given their individual motivations and their perception of the context in which such work takes place. The importance of local contexts should be considered alongside the general themes apparent in debates around the use of ICTs in higher education in order for the money invested, the software developed and the support strategies adopted by HEIs to be the most appropriate and effective.
Bibliography

Allen, DK (2003) ‘Organisational climate and strategic change in higher education: Organisational insecurity’. Higher Education Vol. 46 p.61-62.
Bates, AW (1999) ‘Restructuring the University for Technological Change’, in, J. Brennan, J., Fedrowitz, M., Huber, M. and Shah, T, (eds) What Kind of University? International Perspectives on Knowledge, Participation and Governance. (Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE). 
Brown, S (2000). ‘Reinventing the University’, in, Squires, D; Conole, G. and Jacobs G., The Changing Face of Learning Technology. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press).
Clouder, L (1998) ‘Getting the ‘Right Answers’: Student Evaluation as a Reflection of Intellectual Development?’ Teaching in Higher Education Vol. 3 No. 2 p.185-192.
Crook, C and Light P (2002) ‘The Cultural Practice of Study’, in, S. Woolgar (ed) Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2005). ‘The e-Strategy. Harnessing Technology: Transforming Learning and Children’s Services.’ Available at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy/
Eynon, R (2006) ‘The use of the web for teaching and leaning in Higher Education: rhetoric and reality.’ Innovations in Education and Teaching International. In press.
Flew, T (2002) New Media an Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 
Geoghegan, W (1994) ‘Stuck at the Barricades: Can Information Technology Really Enter the Mainstream of Teaching and Learning?’ AAHE Bulletin p.13-16.
Greenway, D and Haynes, M (2000) Funding Universities to Meet National and International Challenges. (Nottingham: University of Nottingham). 
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (2003) ‘HEFCE strategy for e-learning Strategy.’ Available at, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_12/#exec.
Hannan, A, English, S and Silver, H (1999) ‘Why innovate? Some Preliminary Findings from a Research Project on ‘Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.’’ Studies in Higher Education Vol. 24 No 3. p.279-289.
Jones, C, Zenios, M and Griffiths, J (2004) ‘Academic Use of Digital Resources: Disciplinary Differences and the Issue of Progression.’ Networked Learning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, Sheffield University. 
Knight, PT and Trowler, PR (2000) ‘Department Level Cultures and the Improvement of Learning and Teaching.’ Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No.1 p.69- 83.
Maier, P (1998) Using Technology in Teaching and Learning. (London: Kogan Page).
Newton, R (2003) ‘Staff attitudes to the development and delivery of e-learning.’ New Library World Vol. 104, p. 412-425.
NCIHE (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education) (1997) ‘Higher Education in the Learning Society.’ Middlesex: NCIHE.
Rowley, J, Banwell, L, Childs, S, Gannon-Leary, P, Lonsdale, R, Urquhart, C and Armstrong, C (2002) ‘User Behaviour in Relation to Electronic Information Services within the UK Higher Education Academic Community.’ Journal of Educational Media Vol. 27, No. 3, p.107-122.
Selwyn, N (2003) Apart from Technology: Understanding People’s Non-Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Everyday Life. Technology in Society Vol. 25, p.99-116.
Spotts, T H (1999) ‘Discriminating Factors in Faculty Use of Instructional Technology in Higher Education.’ Journal of Educational Technology and Society Vol. 2 No.4 p.92-99. 
Steel, J and Hudson, A (2001) ‘Educational Technology in Learning and Teaching: The Perceptions and Experiences of Teaching Staff.’ Innovations in Education and Training International Vol. 38 No. 2 p.103-111.